Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. V. Raveendran and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Bachhaj Nahar - Appellant
Versus
Nilima Mandal & Anr. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5798-5799 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP ) Nos.23766-67 of 2005)
Decided on : 23.9.2008
Constitution of India,1950 - Suit property - Permanent injunction - Possession and injunction - Respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration possession and injunction against appellant and in regard to suit property is a strip of land measuring East to West feet and North to South on Western side and on Eastern side described in Schedule `B to plaint - Plaintiffs claimed that suit property was a part of A schedule property purchased by them under sale deed reliefs sought in said suit were declarations that plaintiffs are absolute owners in possession of suit property defendants do not have any right title or interest or possession in respect of suit property first defendant had illegally encroached and started construction in suit property – Held, In absence of a claim by plaintiffs based on an easementary right first defendant did not have an opportunity to demonstrate that plaintiffs had no easementary right - In absence of pleadings and an opportunity to first defendant to deny such claim, the High Court could not have converted a suit for title into a suit for enforcement of an easementary right - First appellate court had recorded a finding of fact that plaintiffs had not made out title - High Court in second appeal did not disturb the said finding. As no question of law arose for consideration High Court ought to have dismissed second appeal - Even if High Court felt that a case for easement was made out at best liberty could have been reserved to plaintiffs to file a separate suit for easement – Appeal Allowed
This Court has consistently emphasized that pleadings serve a fundamental purpose in civil litigation, which is to clearly define the issues between the parties and to ensure that each side is aware of the questions that need to be addressed. The pleadings are meant to provide notice to the opposing party of the case they must meet, and to enable the court to determine the true nature of the dispute.
The object of framing issues is to identify from the pleadings the specific questions or points that require judicial determination, thereby guiding the parties to lead relevant evidence. When a claim or relief is not pleaded, the court cannot consider evidence or grant such relief, as doing so would violate the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
Furthermore, the court cannot create or infer a case that was not originally pleaded or raised by the parties. Evidence cannot be examined to support a case that was not part of the pleadings, and relief cannot be granted on a basis that was not originally claimed or supported by the pleadings. This ensures that the parties have a fair opportunity to contest the case on the issues they have agreed upon and prevents the court from passing judgments beyond the scope of the pleadings.
In essence, the pleadings and issues are designed to confine the scope of the trial and the judgment to the matters that have been explicitly raised and supported by evidence. Any deviation from this principle risks miscarriage of justice and undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
ORDER
(R. V. Raveendran J.) Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel. For convenience, the parties will be referred to also by their ranks in the suit. The facts
2. Respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration, possession and injunction (Title suit no.133/1982 on the file of Sadar Munsiff, Purnia) against the appellant (first defendant) and Sujash Kumar Ghosh (second defendant) in regard to the suit property. The suit property is a strip of land measuring East to West : 72 feet and North to South : 1'3" on the Western side and 10" on the Eastern side described in Schedule `B' to the plaint. Plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was a part of the `A' schedule property purchased by them under sale deed dated 29.12.1962. The reliefs sought in the said suit were : (i) declarations that (a) the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the suit property; (b) the defendants do not have any right, title or interest or possession in respect of suit property; and (c) the first defendant had illegally encroached and started construction in the suit property; (ii) a direction to first defendant to deliver possession of the suit property to plaintiffs after demolishing the construction over the same; and (iii) a permanent injunction restraining first defendant from interfering with the suit property.
3. The first defendant resisted the suit contending that he had purchased the property to the South of plaintiff's property from second defendant under sale deed dated 5.5.1982 and the suit property actually formed part of his property. He contended that the plaintiffs had no right, title or interest in the suit property.
4. The trial court framed the following issues : (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Have the plaintiffs got any cause of action to file the suit as against these defendants? (iii) Is the suit barred by limitation and also on the principle of waiver estoppel and acquiescence? (iv) Whether the description of the suit land is vague? (v) Whether the suit land is part and parcel of land of the plaintiff purchased through registered kewala or the suit land in exclusive possession of Ishan Chand Ghosh, and after his death of second defendant, and after purchase of first defendant. (vi) Has first defendant encroached any portion of the suit land? (vii) Whether the plaintiffs got title over the suit land? Or were they using the suit land under express permission of the late Ishan Chand Ghosh and his son? (viii) To what relief or reliefs, plaintiffs are entitled?
5. After considering the evidence, the trial court by judgment and decree dated 31.8.1987 decreed the suit in part. It held that the suit property was part of plaintiffs' property and that first defendant had encroached over a part of it to an extent of 15 sq. ft. The trial court held that as first defendant had already put up his construction over the encroached portion and was using it, instead of directing him to deliver back possession thereof, he should pay Rs.100/- as the price of the encroached portion, to the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, the first defendant filed an appeal. Plaintiffs filed cross-objections. The first appellate court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the suit property was part of their property purchased under sale deed dated 29.12.1962 or that first defendant had encroached upon any portion of plaintiffs' property; and that the evidence adduced by plaintiffs established that the Gali (suit property) was earlier owned by Ishan Chand Ghosh and his sons and plaintiffs were only using the said Gali with their express permission. The first appellate court therefore allowed the appeal filed by first defendant and dismissed the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs by judgment dated 12.1.1989. As a consequence the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court by judgment dated 14.5.2004 allowed the second app
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
