In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed a fundamental principle of civil litigation: a case must be decided based on the claims and facts presented in the initial pleadings. The decision came in the case of Kishundeo Rout & Others v/s Govind Rao & Others, where the court dismissed a petition that sought to validate a claim of adverse possession that was not originally pleaded by the plaintiffs.
A Legal Journey Through the Courts:
The dispute began with a Title Suit (No. 35 of 1999) filed by the plaintiffs to declare a sale deed "bogus, inoperative, and fit to be cancelled". The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case that the sale deed was a result of fraud or misrepresentation.
The plaintiffs then appealed to the First Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's decision. Astonishingly, the First Appellate Court introduced a new issue of its own: "whether possession of the plaintiff became adverse to the defendants". It concluded that since the defendants had been out of possession of the property since July 7, 2000, and had not taken action to reclaim it, the plaintiffs' adverse possession had "ripened" by 2012, thereby giving them a right to the property. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs on this new basis.
The defendants appealed this decision to the High Court, which set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment. The High Court's reasoning was that the First Appellate Court was not justified in framing the issue of adverse possession because it was "absolutely beyond the pleadings of the parties". A plea for adverse possession requires a foundational pleading in the plaint itself, which was entirely absent in this case.
The Supreme Court's Ruling on Adverse Possession:
The matter then reached the Supreme Court. The court meticulously analyzed the legal history of the case and the arguments presented. It highlighted that a plea of adverse possession is not merely a legal argument but is fundamentally based on facts that must be asserted and proven. A person claiming adverse possession must specify the date they took possession, the nature of that possession, and prove that it was "open and undisturbed" and known to the legal owner. These are all questions of fact that must be "asserted and proved".
The judgment emphasized that an appellate court should not, in normal cases, allow a new plea like adverse possession to be raised for the first time. The court cited the legal maxim secundum allegata et probata, which means that the determination of a case must be "founded upon the case either to be found in the pleadings". A party cannot be permitted to succeed on a case that they did not set up.
The court concluded that the First Appellate Court's decision to introduce and decide on the issue of adverse possession was not justified. Such a plea, which can be a complete surprise to the unsuspecting defendant, must be "specifically raised in the pleadings, put in issue, and then cogent and convincing evidence is led on a multitude of points". In its final order, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the High Court's decision and reinforcing the critical importance of proper and precise pleadings in the justice system.
Section 27, Limitation Act - 1963
Limitation Act, 1963
Section 96., Code of Civil Procedure - 1908
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
