The main legal point established in the judgment is that evidence can be adduced with respect to a document even if it has not been specifically pleaded in the plaint, as long as the parties are aware of the document and the issue has been framed based on the pleadings.

A.K. Mishra, J.

1. This revision has been preferred by the defendant petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 20-12-1999 passed by IXth Addl. District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 14-A/96.

2. Plaintiff/respondent has instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining dis-possession of her at the hands of her son; Anand Singhal, the defendant. She prayed that she be declared the owner of the disputed house bearing municipal No. 26/937 situated at Maharani Laxmi Bai Road and is in possession of the same and defendant be restrained from interfering in her possession of the suit house. In the plaint it was pleaded that she had obtained the house on partition between the deceased Battolal, Anand Singhal and her other son Mahesh Chand @ Mahesh Babu. There was partition on 1-1-1975 which was acted upon between the parties. Mutation was done based thereon and parties also entered the possession on the basis of the partition dated 1-1-1975. After the partition none of the parties raised any objection. In the ground-floor there are certain tenants from whom the plaintiff is recovering the rent. In the upper-floor the plaintiff is residing alongwith her son Mahesh Babu. In the first-floor and in the one room of the second-floor defendant Anand Singhal is residing, he started quarreling with the plaintiff and was trying to take forcible possession. It was further pleaded that no family arrangement was entered into between the parties in December, 1992. The partition had already taken place on 1-1-1975. In the written statement, the defendant denied the plaint allegation and contended that no partition took place on 1-1-1975. If any partition shown to have taken place that does not bear the signature of the defendant nor he had assented to it. The same was not acted upon. The document showing partition dated 1-1-75 is a forged document and was ineffective.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court has framed the following issues :

"2 (a) Whether in the partition dated 1-1-1975 the disputed portion was given to the plaintiff ?

(b) Whether the partition dated 1-1-1975 is forged and has been filed by Mahesh Babu Singhal and plaintiff in collusion to usurp the disputed house ?"

4. Along with the plaint a document in the shape of memorandum of partition reached on 1-1-1975 between the parties has been filed which was notarized on 27-3-1975. Though the oral partition took place between the parties on 1-1-1975 and memorandum was reduced in writing subsequently it was agreed to be acted upon with effect from 1-4-1975.

5. A Commission was issued appointing a Commissioner to record the statement of plaintiff Smt. Ramkatori Devi. During the course of her deposition when the plaintiffs counsel wanted to put an exhibit on the document; memorandum of partition notarised on 27-3-1975, objection was raised about admissibility of the document which was referred to by the Commissioner for the decision to the Court.

6. The Trial Court overruled the objection and held the document to be admissible in evidence and Trial Court also held that the document could be exhibited as it is a memorandum of partition and bar of its admissibility for want of registration is not attracted. Owing to the objection being raised by the defendant Commission could not completely executed. Hence, the Trial Court directed the parties to bear 50% of the Commission fee., Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, present revision has been preferred before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri A.M. Naik has raised threefold submissions. His first submission is that the plaintiff could not be allowed to exhibit the document as the same is not forming the part of the pleadings in the plaint as required under Order 6 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. and by conjoint reading of Order 6 Rule 2 and Order 6 Rule 9 his submission is that if the effect of a document is not stated nor the document is pleaded evidence cann