LexSRINIVAS RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus V. KUMAR VAMANRAO @ ALOK AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 46 : 2024 INSC 165 Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By Lrs. v. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7293-7294 of 2010) 04 March 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration A suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming share in the suit schedule properties. The Judgment of the High Court placed reliance upon 1965 partition which was not the pleaded case in the plaint initially filed. Whether the High Court committed a grave error in placing reliance upon the partition allegedly effected in the year 1965; whether evidence could be led beyond pleadings. Headnotes Pleadings – Evidence beyond pleadings – Appellants submitted that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for the reason that reliance has been placed upon 1965 partition which was not the pleaded case in the plaint initially filed – Propriety: Held: The High Court committed a grave error in placing reliance upon the partition allegedly effected in the year 1965, in terms of which Schedule ‘A’ properties were allotted exclusively to the share of defendant No.1 – The fact remains that it is not even the pleaded case of the plaintiffs in the suit that there was any partition of the family properties in the year 1965 – The suit was filed on 26.05.1999 – Even the pleaded case of the defendants, especially defendant No. 1 who is the husband of plaintiff No. 3 and father of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2, in the written statement filed by him was not that there was any partition in the year 1965 – The plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint seeking to raise pleadings regarding 1965 partition – The Trial Court, vide order dated 11.10.2006 rejected the application for amendment of the plaint – The aforesaid order was not challenged any further – Meaning thereby, the same attained finality as far as the case [2024] 3 S.C.R. 47 Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By Lrs. v. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and Ors. sought to be set up by the plaintiffs based on 1965 partition – There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings – It is not a case in which there was any error in the pleadings and the parties knowing their case fully well had led evidence to enable the Court to deal with that evidence – In the case in hand, specific amendment in the pleadings was sought by the plaintiffs with reference to 1965 partition but the same was rejected – In such a situation, the evidence with reference to 1965 partition cannot be considered. [Paras 14 and 15] Case Law Cited Jehal Tanti and others v. Nageshwar Singh (dead) through LRs., 2013 (14) SCC 689; Ghanshyam Sarda v. Sashikant Jha, Director, M/s J. K. Jute Mills Company Limited and others, (2017) 1 SCC 599; Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, [1966] 2 SCR 286 : AIR 1966 SC 735 – referred to. List of Keywords Pleadings; Partition of family properties; Evidence beyond pleadings. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.7293-7294 of 2010 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2008 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA Nos.1463 and 1782 of 2007 Appearances for Parties M. Gireesh Kumar, S. K. Kulkarni, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Ms. Shalaka Srivastava, Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Varun Kanwal, Advs. for the Appellants. Basava Prabhu S Patil, V. Chitambresh, Sr. Advs., Ankolekar Gurudatta, Korada Pramod Kumar, Amith J, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Amit, Mrs. Vani Vyas, E. C. Vidya Sagar, Advs. for the Respondents. 48 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The appeals1 filed by the plaintiffs having been partly allowed by the High Court2, the defendant No. 7 has challenged the judgment and decree3 of the High Court before this Court. Facts of the case 2. A suit4 was filed by Kumar Vamanrao alias Alok son of Sudheendra Desai(plaintiff No.1), Kumar Vyas alias Prateek Sudheendra Desai (plaintiff No. 2) and Aruna wife of Sudheendra Desai (plaintiff No.3), sons and wife of Sudheendra (defendant No. 1) respectively, impleading the parents of defendant No.1 and great grant mother of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2. Kumari Arundhati (defendant No. 5) was daughter of Ramarao (defendant No.2 and sister of defendant No.1. Martandappa (defendant No.6) was said to be proposed purchaser of the part of the land. Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (defendant No.7) w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.