Whether plaintiff can prove his title on basis of sale deed if there is no pleading regarding sale deed in plaint?

From the above, it is clear that Sub Divisions

188/1,   188/2   &   188/3   were   in   existence   at   least

since before 1983. The deeds on which the reliance

has   been   placed   by   the   plaintiff   i.e.   Sale   Deed

dated 28.08.1992, by  which  Padmanabhan  is said  to

have  transferred  the  property in  favour  of  Sanjay

Ramasamy as well as General Power of Attorney dated

31.10.2007   and   Sale   Deed   dated   04.11.2007   in   the

name   of   plaintiff,   the   suit   property   is   not

described by sub division rather it is mentioned as

part of Plot No. 188. Although, plaintiff got his

plaint amended by amending part of Plot No. 188 as

Survey No. 188/3 but Sale Deed being not for Survey

No. 188/3, both the trial court and the Appellate

Court have rightly come to the conclusion that the

plaintiff   failed   to   correctly   describe   the   suit

property   and   it   cannot   be   accepted   that   deeds

claimed by him referred to the suit property.

23. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   has   laid

much emphasis on the Deed dated 29.7.1974 executed

by Sundara Rajan in favour of Padmanabhan which has

been   brought   on   the   record   of   paper   book   at   page

No.104. Learned counsel submits that said sale deed

clearly   proves the title of Padmanabhan over 2.79

acres   of   Survey   No.188.   The   said   deed   has   been

filed by the plaintiff­respondent as Exhibit A­14.

The   Deed   dated   29.7.1974   has   been   specifically

considered   by   the   trial   court   in   para   9   of   the

judgment.   The   trial   court   has   in   its   judgment

noticed   that   plaintiff   came   with   the   case   in   the

plaint   that   suit   property   was   inherited   by

Padmanabhan, however, he relied on Exhibits A­12 to

A­14 with regard to which there was no pleading in

the  plaint.  In  his  deposition,  PW.1  admitted  that

“it is correct to say that without disclosing this

deed in the plaint I filed Exhibits A­12 to A­15”.

When there  was no pleading in the plaint regarding

title   of   Padmanabhan   by   any   other   earlier   deed

except   the   claim   of   inheritance   the   trial   court

rightly  discarded the Deed  dated  29.7.1974.  It  is

further   relevant   to   note   that   plaintiff's

application made for amendment of the plaint in the

Appellate Court was considered and rejected by the

Appellate Court. The evidence, with regard of which

there is no pleading, has rightly been discarded by

the   trial   court.   Unless   there   is   a   pleading

especially with regard to the source of title, the

defendant   of   a   suit   has   no   opportunity   to   rebut

such pleading thus an evidence with regard to which

there   is   no   pleading   can   not   be   relied   by   the

plaintiff   for   setting   up   his   title   in   a   suit.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2342 OF 2017

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU       

CHOKKANATHA SWAMY KOIL TRUST 

VIRUDHUNAGAR    

   V

CHANDRAN & ORS  

 

Citation:(2017)3 SCC702

Read full judgment here :Click here

Print Page