Issue of Evidence Beyond Pleadings in Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai v. V. Kumar Vamanrao (2024 INSC 165): The Supreme Court reaffirmed the well-established legal principle that evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered unless both parties knowingly lead evidence on an unpleaded issue

-

In-depth Summary of the Judgment (2024 INSC 165)

Case Title: Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by LRS. v. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No(s): 7293-7294 of 2010
Judges: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Date of Judgment: March 4, 2024

Facts of the Case:

  • Parties Involved:

    • Plaintiffs: Kumar Vamanrao (Alok), Kumar Vyas (Prateek), and Aruna (wife of Sudheendra Desai).
    • Defendants: Sudheendra Desai (Defendant No. 1), his family members, and various parties related to property ownership and sale, including Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Defendant No. 7) and Murugharajendra Vidyapeeth (Defendant No. 9).

  • Nature of Suit:
    The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a 5/9th share in the suit schedule properties and mesne profits. The properties were divided into four schedules (A, B, C, and D) listing various lands and houses across villages in Dharwad and Hubli.

Procedural History:

  1. Trial Court (III Additional Civil Judge, Dharwad):

    • Date: April 21, 2007
    • Findings:
      • Plaintiffs and Defendants 1-3, 5 were entitled to 1/6th share in specified properties.
      • Suit dismissed for properties including Survey Nos. 106/2, 120, and 9A/9.
      • No mesne profits were granted.
      • Suit dismissed against Defendants 6-9.

  2. High Court of Karnataka:

    • Date: December 19, 2008
    • Findings:
      • Held that Schedule A properties belonged to Defendant No. 1, granting 1/4th share each to plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1.
      • Sale of Survey No. 106/2 by Defendant No. 7 to Defendant No. 9 was declared null and void.
      • Certain matters were remitted to the Trial Court for additional evidence and determination of ownership.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court:

  1. Validity of the 1965 partition relied upon by the High Court.
  2. Legality of the sale deed dated 25.07.2001 executed by Defendant No. 7 in favor of Defendant No. 9.
  3. Determination of rightful ownership of Survey Nos. 106/2 and 44/4.

Arguments:

  • Appellant (Defendant No. 7):

    • Contested the 1965 partition, arguing it was not pleaded and evidence beyond pleadings could not be considered.
    • Asserted the 1984 partition was documented and legally valid.
    • Claimed that the sale of Survey No. 106/2 was legitimate, and Defendant No. 9 was a bona fide purchaser.

  • Respondents (Plaintiffs):

    • Supported the 1965 partition, alleging the 1984 partition was fabricated.
    • Argued the sale deed violated interim orders of the Trial Court.
    • Relied on the Jehal Tanti v. Nageshwar Singh (2013) and Ghanshyam Sarda v. Sashikant Jha (2017) to argue for nullification of the sale deed.

Judgment:

Key Findings:

  1. 1965 Partition:

    • The High Court erred in relying on the unpleaded 1965 partition.
    • Plaintiffs’ attempt to amend the plaint to include this partition was rejected by the Trial Court on 11.10.2006, and this order was not challenged.
    • Evidence regarding the 1965 partition could not be considered as it went beyond the pleadings.

  2. 1984 Partition:

    • The 1984 partition was well-documented and legally recognized through Civil Suit No. 80 of 1995, decided on 23.06.1995.
    • Survey Nos. 106/2 and 44/4 were allotted to Defendant No. 7 in the 1984 partition.

  3. Sale Deed of Survey No. 106/2:

    • The sale of Survey No. 106/2 by Defendant No. 7 to Defendant No. 9 on 25.07.2001 was upheld as valid.
    • The interim order restraining alienation passed on 31.05.1999 did not apply to Defendant No. 7 as he was impleaded only on 02.01.2001.

  4. Survey No. 44/4:

    • Belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of Defendant No. 7, per the 1984 partition deed.
    • The entire 7-acre extent of this property was allotted to Defendant No. 7.

Final Decision:

  • Appeals by Defendant No. 7’s legal representatives were allowed.
  • High Court's findings on Survey Nos. 106/2 and 44/4 were set aside.
  • Sale deed dated 25.07.2001 executed by Defendant No. 7 in favor of Defendant No. 9 was upheld as valid and binding.

Citations 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 AIR 1966 SC 735

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies that the 1984 partition was legally recognized, and the 1965 partition could not be relied upon due to the lack of pleadings and rejection of amendment requests. It also validates the sale of Survey No. 106/2 and establishes the rightful ownership of properties in favor of Defendant No. 7’s legal heirs.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Important sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along with key points:

-
Important sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along with key points: Chapter-wise Important Sections of BNS, 2023 General Principles & Definitions Section 1 – Short title, extent, and commencement Section 2 – Definitions (similar to IPC, but some terms updated) Section 3 – Punishment of offenses committed beyond India but by Indian citizens General Exceptions (Defense to Criminal Liability) Section 20 – Act done by a child below 7 years is not an offense Section 21 – Act done by a child above 7 but below 12, considering maturity Section 24 – Right of private defense (self-defense provisions) Section 25 – Right of private defense extending to causing death in certain cases Offenses Against the State Section 111 – Waging war against the Government of India Section 113 – Sedition (modified from IPC; now called "acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India") Offenses Affecting Public Tranquility ...
Read more

Advocate Amendment Bill 2025: Key Reforms and Implications for the Legal Profession"

-
Image
Summary of the  Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 The  Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025  proposes significant reforms to the  Advocates Act, 1961  to modernize the legal profession, improve legal education, and enhance transparency and accountability. The key objectives of the amendment include: Introduction of Advisory and Regulatory Bodies: Establishment of an  Advisory Board  by the  Bar Council of India (BCI)  to oversee legal education, research, and the profession. Recognition of  Bar Associations  at various levels (Supreme Court, High Courts, Tribunals, etc.). Implementation of  periodic verification  of advocates' credentials, places of practice, and law degrees. Changes in Legal Education and Bar Examination: Introduction of a mandatory Bar Examination  for both enrollment and continued legal practice. Recognition of foreign law degrees and regulation of  foreign law firms/lawyers  in In...
Read more

MCQs on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

-
Here is a set of 20 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) based on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, focusing on both conceptual understanding and practical application. Each question is followed by an explanation. MCQs on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 General Principles & Definitions Which of the following is a fundamental principle introduced in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? a) Rehabilitation-focused punishment b) Community service as an alternative to imprisonment c) Stringent punishment for organized crime and terrorism d) Legalization of certain offenses under previous laws Answer: c) Stringent punishment for organized crime and terrorism Explanation: The BNS 2023 enhances penalties for offenses like terrorism, mob lynching, and organized crime to strengthen national security. Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which term replaces the word ‘offense’ used in IPC, 1860? a) Crime b) Illegality c) Apradh d) Wrongdoing Answer: c) Apradh Explanation: The term...
Read more