Back
1929 Supreme(SC) 79
Privy Council At Sind
Sir Binod Mitter, Sir George Lowndes , Tomlin , Lords Darling, Justice Viscount Dunedin, JJ.
Siddik Mahomed Shah -Appellant
Versus
Saran and others -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 18 of 1928
Decided On : 25-10-1929
T.L. Wilson and Co., J.M. Parikh
Evidence cannot be considered or relied upon by a court to support a legal plea or claim that was not specifically raised in the party's pleadings.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Evidence cannot be considered or looked into upon a plea which was never put forward in the defense.
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are generally upheld and not disturbed unless there is a compelling reason.
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed ownership of certain lands based on an alleged gift from the original owner, a claim that was rejected by concurrent findings of two lower courts. Following the original owner's death, the lands were transferred via mutation of names upon the application of the owner's widow. The lower courts inferred that the widow, being ignorant, transferred the lands to the appellant, her spiritual adviser, to hold them as a trustee. The appellant subsequently sought to retain the lands by claiming the transfer was a gift made by the widow herself, although this specific plea had not been included in the defense presented during the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant's claim regarding the gift from the widow was not supported by the pleadings, and therefore, no evidence could be considered to support such a claim.
Issues: Whether evidence can be admitted or considered to support a plea that was not specifically raised in the pleadings of the party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward in the pleadings.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land ownership
- transfer of property
- trusts
-
land ownership
-
practice and procedure
-
pleadings
- evidence admissibility
-
pleadings
Viscount Dunedin-
This is a hopeless appeal. A certain Hote Khan is alleged by the appellant, who is in possession of certain lands which belonged to Hote Khan to have given these lands to him. That story is not accepted, and there are concurrent findings as to the fact by both Courts. After Hote Khan's death there was a transference of the lands in question by mutation of names effected upon the application of Hote Khan's widow. The Judicial Commissioners think it very probable that Hote Khan's widow being an ignorant person and with no one to help her, transferred the lands in that way in order that her spiritual adviser might hold them as trustee. The spiritual adviser, who is the appellant wishes to keep them first upon the ground already specified which their Lordships have already disposed of and, secondly upon the ground that it was a gift made by the widow herself but that claim was never made in the defence presented and the learned Judicial Commissioners therefore, very truly find that no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward. The result is that their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed. As the respondents have not appeared, there will be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
