Dulichand vs Prahladsingh - 1983 Supreme(MP) 737

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V.K. Sapre
For the Respondent: D.K. Katare

Headnote:(1) Practice (Civil) – pleading and proof – no evidence can be looked into without pleading.
       (2) Pleadings – evidence without pleading – cannot be looked into.
        Short Note
       According to plaintiffs, the defendants had unauthorizedly constructed a small cutcha house in area, 15'X6' in the plaintiff's Khasra No. 370 towards western side. Hence they claimed possession thereof, after demolishing of the superstructure. The defendants, while admitting the factum of plaintiffs' ownership of the said khasra number, solely contended that they were in possession of this piece of land, with a house existing thereon, since long before the abolition of Malguzari; and that, they had simply repaired the said house recently. The trial Court, in the light of the evidence on record decreed the suit claim, with respect to land in question and the house thereon. The appeal, preferred by the defendants, was dismissed.
       2. Now, the learned counsel for the defendants in the present second appeal, has urged that both the Courts below, more particularly the lower appellate Court, had acted erroneously, in not taking into account the defendants' evidence already on record, to the effect that the particular piece of land and the house thereon, were not part of plaintiffs' Khasra number 370, but were situated in the defendants' own particular Khasra No. 372.
       3. Held: The argument advanced, is obviously without any merit. The law is well settled that no extraneous evidence can be looked into in the absence of specific pleadings in that regard. Evidence has to be tailored, strictly according to pleadings, and cannot be a probing adventure in the dark, filing surprise to the opposite party. In the present case, the evidence, adduced by the defendants, is obviously contrary to there own pleadings, and they cannot be permitted to say that the disputed land fell within their Khasra No. 372 and not within the plaintiff's Khasra No. 370. In the absence of specific pleadings in this regard, the lower appellate Court was, therefore right in upholding the trial Court's Judgment and decree in the plaintiffs' favour in the light of the evidence on record, within the four – corners of the parties, respective pleadings. Appeal dismissed.