A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case examines whether the High Court erred in relying on an unpleaded 1965 partition while adjudicating a suit for division of family properties. The plaintiffs sought partition and mesne profits concerning several properties, claiming shares therein. The High Court relied on an unpleaded 1965 oral partition to adjudicate some properties, disregarding the constraints of evidence beyond pleadings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in accepting evidence relating to the 1965 partition, which lacked a foundational pleading. The judgment restored the significance of procedural adherence to pleadings and rejected claims supported solely by inadmissible evidence.

Keywords: Pleadings, Evidence beyond pleadings, Family partition, Procedural law, 1965 partition.

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgment Cause Title: Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By Lrs. v. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and Ors.
• ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 7293-7294 of 2010
• iii) Judgment Date: 04 March 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
• vi) Author: Justice Rajesh Bindal
• vii) Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 46
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Rules of Civil Procedure, Doctrine of pleadings, Evidence Act, Family law on partition.
• ix) Judgments overruled by the case (if any): None specified.
• x) Related Law Subjects: Civil law, Partition and property law, Procedural law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs, descendants of the Desai family, filed a suit for partition of ancestral property, alleging co-ownership of properties across four schedules. The dispute revolved around oral partition claims from 1965 and 1984. The plaintiffs sought to introduce evidence of the 1965 oral partition, which had not been pleaded in their original case. The High Court accepted such evidence, ruling portions of Schedule ‘A’ properties belonged exclusively to one defendant. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, challenging the propriety of relying on unpleaded facts.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The plaintiffs included the sons and wife of defendant No. 1, alleging co-ownership in the Desai family properties.
2. Properties were categorized into Schedules A, B, C, and D. Plaintiffs sought division and mesne profits.
3. Defendants contested, relying on alleged family partitions from 1965 and 1984, which determined separate ownership.
4. The trial court rejected evidence beyond pleadings but divided certain properties equally among heirs.
5. On appeal, the High Court relied on the 1965 oral partition for adjudication, ignoring procedural constraints on evidence.
6. Defendant No. 7 challenged the High Court judgment in the Supreme Court, asserting procedural violations.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

• i) Whether the High Court erred in relying on the 1965 partition not pleaded in the case.
• ii) Can evidence beyond pleadings influence judicial determination in partition suits?
• iii) Are subsequent findings on property ownership valid if procedural lapses occur in relying on evidence?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Evidence beyond Pleadings: The appellants argued that the High Court erred by relying on the unpleaded 1965 partition, contrary to established procedural norms.
2. Procedural Adherence: They highlighted that the trial court had already rejected amendments to introduce the 1965 partition, which attained finality.
3. 1984 Partition Validity: They emphasized that the 1984 partition formed the lawful basis for property distribution.
4. Binding Precedents: Reliance was placed on Jehal Tanti v. Nageshwar Singh (2013) and Ghanshyam Sarda v. Sashikant Jha (2017), which barred reliance on unpleaded evidence.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Equity and Justice: The respondents argued that the High Court rightly considered the 1965 partition to ensure equitable distribution.
2. Relaxation of Pleadings Rule: They contended that evidence beyond pleadings is admissible if issues are well-known to parties and fully addressed in trial.
3. Fraud Allegations: They claimed the 1984 partition was fabricated to deny rightful claims of plaintiffs.
4. Supportive Precedent: Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul (1966) was cited to justify judicial reliance on unpleaded but proven facts.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi The Supreme Court ruled that reliance on evidence of the 1965 partition was improper as it was not pleaded. Procedural rules on pleadings are fundamental to ensure fairness. Evidence cannot establish a case unpleaded in court.

b. Obiter Dicta The Court noted that procedural lapses create uncertainty in adjudication, undermining trust in judicial processes. Equity cannot supersede clear procedural requirements.

c. Guidelines

1. Courts must strictly adhere to pleadings, especially in partition disputes.
2. Evidence beyond pleadings can only be considered if foundational pleadings exist or parties consent to adjudicate unpleaded issues.
3. Procedural rulings, such as rejection of amendments, attain finality unless challenged.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment reinforces the primacy of pleadings in civil litigation. By rejecting the High Court’s reliance on the unpleaded 1965 partition, the Supreme Court emphasized procedural sanctity over expedient outcomes. The ruling serves as a precedent in balancing equity and procedural fairness in property disputes.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Jehal Tanti v. Nageshwar Singh (2013) 14 SCC 689
2. Ghanshyam Sarda v. Sashikant Jha (2017) 1 SCC 599
3. Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul [1966] 2 SCR 286

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872