Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By Lrs. vs V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

4 March 2024

Case No.

Civil Appeal Nos. 7293-7294 of 2010

Result

Allowed

Bench

C.T. Ravikumar, Rajesh Bindal

Citation

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 46 : 2024 INSC 165

Issue for consideration

A suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming share in the suit schedule properties. The Judgment of the High Court placed reliance upon 1965 partition which was not the pleaded case in the plaint initially filed. Whether the High Court committed a grave error in placing reliance upon the partition allegedly effected in the year 1965; whether evidence could be led beyond pleadings.

Headnote

Pleadings – Evidence beyond pleadings – Appellants submitted that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for the reason that reliance has been placed upon 1965 partition which was not the pleaded case in the plaint initially filed – Propriety:

Held: The High Court committed a grave error in placing reliance upon the partition allegedly effected in the year 1965, in terms of which Schedule ‘A’ properties were allotted exclusively to the share of defendant No.1 – The fact remains that it is not even the pleaded case of the plaintiffs in the suit that there was any partition of the family properties in the year 1965 – The suit was filed on 26.05.1999 – Even the pleaded case of the defendants, especially defendant No. 1 who is the husband of plaintiff No.

3 and father of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2, in the written statement filed by him was not that there was any partition in the year 1965 – The plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint seeking to raise pleadings regarding 1965 partition – The Trial Court, vide order dated 11.10.2006 rejected the application for amendment of the plaint – The aforesaid order was not challenged any further – Meaning thereby, the same attained finality as far as the case sought to be set up by the plaintiffs based on 1965 partition – There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings – It is not a case in which there was any error in the pleadings and the parties knowing their case fully well had led evidence to enable the Court to deal with that evidence – In the case in hand, specific amendment in the pleadings was sought by the plaintiffs with reference to 1965 partition but the same was rejected – In such a situation, the evidence with reference to 1965 partition cannot be considered. [Paras 14 and 15]

Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The appeals1 filed by the plaintiffs having been partly allowed by the High Court2, the defendant No. 7 has challenged the judgment and decree3 of the High Court before this Court. Facts of the case 2. A suit4 was filed by Kumar Vamanrao alias Alok son of Sudheendra Desai(plaintiff No.1), Kumar Vyas alias Prateek Sudheendra Desai (plaintiff No. 2) and Aruna wife of Sudheendra Desai (plaintiff No.3), sons and wife of Sudheendra (defendant No. 1) respectively, impleading the parents of defendant No.1 and great grant mother of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2. Kumari Ar

View Subscription Plans →