9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (9) TMI 967 - SC - Indian LawsSuit for declaration possession and injunction - High Court converted a suit for title into a suit for enforcement of an Easementary right - Principles relating to the object and necessity of pleadings - Violation of fundamental rules of civil procedure by High Court - whether any relief can be granted when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the court could not be granted. HELD THAT - When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief and when defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief if the court considers and grants such a relief it will lead to miscarriage of justice Even though right of easement was not pleaded or claimed by the plaintiffs and even though parties were at issue only in regard to title and possession it made out for the first time in second appeal a case of easement and granted relief based on an easementary right. For this purpose it relied upon the following observations of this Court in Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao 1962 (4) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT . As the very requirements indicate this should be only in exceptional cases where the court is fully satisfied that the pleadings and issues generally cover the case subsequently put forward and that the parties being conscious of the issue had led evidence on such issue. But where the court is not satisfied that such case was at issue the question of resorting to the exception to the general rule does not arise. The principles laid down in Bhagwati Prasad 1965 (10) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT and Ram Sarup Gupta 1987 (4) TMI 476 - SUPREME COURT and several other decisions of this Court following the same cannot be construed as diluting the well settled principle that without pleadings and issues evidence cannot be considered to make out a new case which is not pleaded. Another aspect to be noticed is that the court can consider such a case not specifically pleaded only when one of the parties raises the same at the stage of arguments by contending that the pleadings and issues are sufficient to make out a particular case and that the parties proceeded on that basis and had led evidence on that case. Where neither party puts forth such a contention the court cannot obviously make out such a case not pleaded suo moto. A perusal of the plaint clearly shows that entire case of the plaintiffs was that they were the owners of the suit property and that the first defendant had encroached upon it. The plaintiffs had not pleaded even as an alternative case that they were entitled to an easementary right of passage over the schedule property. The facts to be pleaded and proved for establishing title are different from the facts that are to be pleaded and proved for making out an easementary right. It is fundamental that in a civil suit relief to be granted can be only with reference to the prayers made in the pleadings. Therefore it would be hazardous to hold that in a civil suit whatever be the relief that is prayed the court can on examination of facts grant any relief as it thinks fit. In a suit for recovery of Rs.one lakh the court cannot grant a decree for Rs. Ten lakhs. In the absence of a claim by plaintiffs based on an easementary right the first defendant did not have an opportunity to demonstrate that the plaintiffs had no easementary right. In the absence of pleadings and an opportunity to the 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. The first appellate court had recorded a finding of fact that plaintiffs had not made out title. The High Court in second appeal did not disturb the said finding. As no question of law arose for consideration the High Court ought to have dismissed the second appeal. Even if the High Court felt that a case for easement was made out at best liberty could have been reserved to the plaintiffs to file a separate suit for easement. But the High court could not in a second appeal while rejecting the plea of the plaintiffs that they were owners of the suit property grant the relief of injunction in regard to an easementary right by assuming that they had an easementary right to use the schedule property as a passage. We accordingly allow these appeals and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restore the judgment of the first appellate court. Parties to bear respective costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit. 2. Cause of action for the plaintiffs. 3. Bar of limitation, waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence. 4. Vagueness in the description of the suit land. 5. Ownership and possession of the suit land. 6. Encroachment by the first defendant. 7. Plaintiffs' title over the suit land. 8. Reliefs entitled to the plaintiffs. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Maintainability of the Suit The trial court found the suit maintainable, allowing the plaintiffs to seek declarations of ownership, possession, and injunction against the defendants. The appellate courts did not specifically address this issue, implying no contention regarding maintainability. Issue 2: Cause of Action for the Plaintiffs The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the suit property based on a sale deed dated 29.12.1962 and alleged illegal encroachment by the first defendant. The trial court upheld their cause of action partially, recognizing encroachment over 15 sq. ft. However, the first appellate court dismissed this finding, stating the plaintiffs failed to prove their title or encroachment by the first defendant. Issue 3: Bar of Limitation, Waiver, Estoppel, and Acquiescence The trial court did not find the suit barred by limitation or principles of waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence. The appellate courts did not explicitly address this issue, suggesting it was not a significant point of contention. Issue 4: Vagueness in the Description of the Suit Land The trial court did not find the description of the suit land to be vague. This issue was not highlighted in the appellate courts, indicating no substantial dispute over the land description. Issue 5: Ownership and Possession of the Suit Land The trial court concluded that the suit property was part of the plaintiffs' property and that the first defendant had encroached upon it. Conversely, the first appellate court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership and that the suit property was owned by Ishan Chand Ghosh and his sons, with the plaintiffs using it with permission. The High Court upheld the appellate court's finding that the plaintiffs did not establish title but granted relief based on easementary rights, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court. Issue 6: Encroachment by the First Defendant The trial court found that the first defendant had encroached upon 15 sq. ft. of the plaintiffs' property. The first appellate court disagreed, stating no encroachment was proven. The High Court did not disturb this finding but granted relief based on easementary rights, which was subsequently nullified by the Supreme Court. Issue 7: Plaintiffs' Title Over the Suit Land The trial court recognized the plaintiffs' title to the suit property. However, the first appellate court reversed this, stating the plaintiffs failed to prove their title. The High Court, while agreeing with the appellate court on the lack of title, granted relief based on easementary rights, which the Supreme Court found inappropriate as it was not pleaded or proven. Issue 8: Reliefs Entitled to the Plaintiffs The trial court granted partial relief, directing the first defendant to pay Rs. 100 for the encroached portion. The first appellate court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit entirely. The High Court granted a permanent injunction based on easementary rights, which the Supreme Court set aside, restoring the first appellate court's judgment. Supreme Court's Observations and Conclusions: - The High Court violated fundamental rules of civil procedure by granting relief not claimed or pleaded. - Pleadings and issues are essential to define the scope of litigation and ensure fair trial. - A court cannot grant relief based on a case not pleaded, as it leads to miscarriage of justice. - The High Court's reliance on easementary rights without proper pleadings and issues was erroneous. - The Supreme Court emphasized that relief in civil suits must align with the pleadings and prayers made. Final Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the first appellate court's judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The parties were encouraged to consider mediation or direct negotiations to resolve their dispute.
|
