LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of a partition of family property and the effect of prior court decrees on subsequent property disputes.
CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute
Case Name: Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By Lrs. vs. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok And Ors.
[Judgment Date]: March 04, 2024
Date of the Judgment: March 04, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 165
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a court rely on a partition not originally pleaded by the parties? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent property dispute, overturning a High Court decision that had relied on a partition not initially claimed in the suit. This case revolves around a family’s long-standing property dispute, highlighting the importance of pleadings and evidence in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, delivered the judgment, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute over the partition of family properties among the descendants of Hanamanthrao Vyasrao Desai. The suit was originally filed by Kumar Vamanrao, Kumar Vyas, and Aruna (plaintiffs), the sons and wife of Sudheendra Desai (defendant No. 1), against other family members, including Sudheendra’s parents and sister. Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (defendant No. 7) was later impleaded. The plaintiffs sought a 5/9th share in the properties listed in the suit schedule.
The plaintiffs claimed a share in various properties listed in Schedules A, B, C, and D. These properties included agricultural lands and houses located in different villages of Dharwad and Hubli Talukas. The Trial Court granted a 1/6th share to plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and defendants No. 1 to 3 and 5 in certain properties, while dismissing the claim on other properties. The High Court partly allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal, modifying the Trial Court’s decision.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 26.05.1999 | Suit filed by the plaintiffs claiming 5/9th share in the suit schedule properties. |
| 31.05.1999 | Trial Court passed an interim order restraining defendants No.1 to 4 from alienating the property. |
| 02.01.2001 | Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (defendant No. 7) was impleaded in the suit. |
| 25.07.2001 | Defendant No. 7 sold Regular Survey No.106/2 to defendant No. 9. |
| 11.07.2003 | Prahlad (defendant No.8) brother of defendant No. 7 was impleaded in the suit. |
| 08.06.2005 | Administrative Officer -Murugharajendra Vidyapeeth (defendant No. 9) was impleaded in the suit. |
| 11.10.2006 | Trial Court rejected the plaintiffs’ application for amendment of the plaint to include the 1965 partition. |
| 21.04.2007 | Trial Court held the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 entitled to 1/6th share in certain properties. |
| 19.12.2008 | High Court partly allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal, modifying the Trial Court’s decision. |
| 23.03.2015 | Legal representatives of defendant No. 7 were brought on record after his death. |
| 04.03.2024 | Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s findings. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court granted a 1/6th share to plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and defendants No. 1 to 3 and 5 in certain properties, while dismissing the claim on other properties. Aggrieved by this, both the plaintiffs and defendants appealed to the High Court. The High Court modified the Trial Court’s decision, holding that the Schedule A properties were the exclusive properties of defendant No. 1 allotted in the 1965 partition, and that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 would have 1/4th share each in these properties. The High Court also declared the sale of Item No. 2 of Schedule A by defendant No. 7 to defendant No. 9 as null and void, and remitted certain issues back to the Trial Court for further evidence. Defendant No.7 then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the interpretation of property rights and the effect of prior partitions on subsequent claims. The Supreme Court also considered the principles related to pleadings and evidence, specifically whether a court can rely on evidence of a partition that was not pleaded in the original suit. The Court also considered the effect of an interim order on a party who was not a party to the suit when the order was passed.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Defendant No. 7):
- The High Court erred in relying on the 1965 partition, which was not pleaded in the original plaint. The plaintiffs had sought to amend the plaint to include this, but the Trial Court rejected it.
- The High Court should not have set aside the decree dated 23.06.1995, which recognized the 1984 partition.
- Defendant No. 7 did not violate any interim order of the Trial Court, as he was not a party when the order was passed.
- The property bearing Regular Survey No. 106/2 was rightfully sold by defendant No. 7, as it came to his share in the 1984 partition.
- The property bearing Regular Survey No. 44/4 had exclusively fallen to his share in the family partition effected on 30.08.1984.
Respondents’ Arguments (Plaintiffs):
- The High Court rightly relied on the 1965 partition, as the 1984 partition was doubtful.
- The sale deed executed by defendant No. 7 was in violation of the interim order passed by the Trial Court and is therefore void.
- Even without pleadings, the evidence led by the parties can be appreciated by the court.
- The sale of property by defendant No. 7 to defendant No. 9 was to protect his interest.
Arguments of Defendant No. 9:
- Defendant No. 9 argued that he was a bonafide purchaser of the property from defendant No. 7, and that the sale was valid.
- Defendant No. 9 adopted the arguments raised by the appellant.
The key innovative argument by the appellant was that the High Court had relied on a partition of 1965 which was not pleaded by the plaintiff and the application to amend the plaint to include the same was rejected by the trial court, and hence, the High Court’s reliance on the same was erroneous. The respondents argued that the sale deed was executed in violation of the interim order, which was a novel argument.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellant/Defendant No. 7) | Sub-Submission (Respondents/Plaintiffs) | Sub-Submission (Defendant No. 9) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 1965 Partition | Not pleaded, amendment rejected; High Court erred in relying on it. | Rightly relied upon, 1984 partition doubtful. | |
| Validity of 1984 Partition | Recognized by decree dated 23.06.1995; High Court erred in setting it aside. | ||
| Violation of Interim Order | Defendant No. 7 was not a party when the order was passed. | Sale deed executed in violation of the interim order. | |
| Sale of Property | Property rightfully sold as it came to the share of Defendant No. 7 in 1984 partition. | Sale was to protect the interest of Defendant No. 7. | Bonafide purchaser of the property. |
| Admissibility of Evidence | No evidence can be led beyond pleadings. | Evidence can be appreciated even without pleadings. | |
| Property bearing Regular Survey No. 44/4 | Property exclusively fell to the share of Defendant No. 7 in 1984 partition. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the High Court was correct in relying upon the oral partition of 1965 when it was not the pleaded case of the plaintiffs and the application for amendment of the plaint to that effect was rejected by the Trial Court?
- Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the decree dated 23.06.1995 passed in Civil Suit No. 80 of 1995?
- Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No. 7 in favour of defendant No. 9 was in violation of the interim order passed by the Trial Court?
- Whether the property bearing Regular Survey No. 44/4 was rightfully assigned to the share of the appellants?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Reliance on 1965 Partition | Incorrect | The 1965 partition was not pleaded, and the amendment to include it was rejected by the Trial Court. |
| Setting aside the decree dated 23.06.1995 | Incorrect | The High Court had no basis to set aside the decree without any challenge to it. |
| Violation of Interim Order | No Violation | Defendant No. 7 was not a party to the suit when the interim order was passed. |
| Property bearing Regular Survey No. 44/4 | Rightfully assigned to the share of the appellants | In the family partition held in the year 1984 the said property was assigned to the share of late Raghavendrarao Hanamanthrao Desai. |
Authorities
The following authorities were considered by the Court:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jehal Tanti and others v. Nageshwar Singh (dead) through LRs, [2013(14) SCC 689] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The respondents relied on this case to support the argument that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 7 in favour of defendant No. 9 in violation of the interim order was non-est. The Supreme Court distinguished this case as the interim order was not applicable to defendant No. 7. |
| Ghanshyam Sarda v. Sashikant Jha, Director, M/s J. K. Jute Mills Company Limited and others, [(2017) 1 SCC 599] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The respondents relied on this case to support the argument that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 7 in favour of defendant No. 9 in violation of the interim order was non-est. The Supreme Court distinguished this case as the interim order was not applicable to defendant No. 7. |
| Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, [AIR 1966 SC 735] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The respondents relied on this case to support the argument that once the parties go to trial knowing the issues involved, the evidence led even without pleadings can very well be appreciated. The Supreme Court distinguished this case as the present case involved a specific rejection of an amendment to include the 1965 partition. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that High Court erred in relying on 1965 partition. | Accepted. The Court held that the High Court erred in relying on the 1965 partition, as it was not pleaded and the amendment to include it was rejected. |
| Appellant’s submission that High Court should not have set aside the decree dated 23.06.1995. | Accepted. The Court held that the High Court was wrong in setting aside the decree without any challenge to the same. |
| Appellant’s submission that Defendant No. 7 did not violate any interim order. | Accepted. The Court held that the interim order was not applicable to Defendant No. 7 as he was not a party to the suit when the order was passed. |
| Appellant’s submission that the property bearing Regular Survey No. 106/2 was rightfully sold. | Accepted. The Court upheld the sale deed executed by the appellant in favour of defendant No. 9. |
| Appellant’s submission that the property bearing Regular Survey No. 44/4 was rightfully assigned to the share of the appellants. | Accepted. The Court held that the property was assigned to the share of late Raghavendrarao Hanamanthrao Desai in the 1984 partition. |
| Respondent’s submission that the High Court rightly relied on the 1965 partition. | Rejected. The Court held that the High Court erred in relying on the 1965 partition. |
| Respondent’s submission that the sale deed was in violation of the interim order. | Rejected. The Court held that the interim order was not applicable to Defendant No. 7. |
| Respondent’s submission that evidence can be appreciated even without pleadings. | Rejected. The Court held that in this case, where a specific amendment was rejected, evidence on that point cannot be considered. |
| Defendant No. 9’s submission that he was a bonafide purchaser. | Accepted. The Court upheld the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 9. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Supreme Court distinguished the cases cited by the respondents, holding that they were not applicable to the facts of the present case. The court held that the cases Jehal Tanti and others v. Nageshwar Singh (dead) through LRs, [2013(14) SCC 689] and Ghanshyam Sarda v. Sashikant Jha, Director, M/s J. K. Jute Mills Company Limited and others, [(2017) 1 SCC 599] were not applicable as the interim order was not applicable to defendant No. 7. The court held that the case Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, [AIR 1966 SC 735] was not applicable as the present case involved a specific rejection of an amendment to include the 1965 partition.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that evidence cannot be considered on a point that was not pleaded and for which an amendment was specifically rejected. The Court emphasized the importance of pleadings in defining the scope of the case. The Court also considered the fact that the 1984 partition was recognized by a prior court decree, which was not challenged by the parties. The Court also noted that the defendant No. 1 did not challenge the sale of the property in question during his lifetime, which further established the fact that the property had gone to the share of defendant No. 7 in the 1984 partition. The Court also noted that the interim order passed by the Trial Court was not applicable to defendant No. 7 as he was not a party to the suit when the order was passed.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of Pleadings | 40% |
| Validity of 1984 Partition | 30% |
| Non-Applicability of Interim Order | 20% |
| Conduct of Defendant No. 1 | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was based more on legal principles than on the factual aspects of the case.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s findings regarding Regular Survey Nos. 106/2 and 44/4. The Court held that these properties came to the share of the appellants (legal representatives of defendant No. 7). The Court upheld the sale deed executed by defendant No. 7 in favor of defendant No. 9 regarding Survey No. 106/2.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
- The High Court erred in relying on the 1965 partition, as it was not the pleaded case of the plaintiffs and the amendment to include it was rejected by the Trial Court.
- The High Court should not have set aside the decree dated 23.06.1995, which recognized the 1984 partition, without any challenge to the same.
- Defendant No. 7 did not violate the interim order of the Trial Court, as he was not a party to the suit when the order was passed.
- The property bearing Regular Survey No. 106/2 was rightfully sold by defendant No. 7, as it came to his share in the 1984 partition.
- The property bearing Regular Survey No. 44/4 was also assigned to the share of late Raghavendrarao Hanamanthrao Desai in the 1984 partition.
The Court highlighted the importance of pleadings in legal proceedings, stating: “There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings.” The Court further emphasized that “What was not permitted to be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.” The Court also noted the conduct of defendant No. 1, stating, “Such conduct of the parties, like a pendulum in the clock in fact puts the Court on trial.”
Key Takeaways
- Pleadings are crucial in legal proceedings, and courts cannot rely on evidence that goes beyond the pleadings, especially when an amendment to include such evidence has been rejected.
- Prior court decrees should not be set aside without a proper challenge by the parties.
- An interim order is not applicable to a party who was not a party to the suit when the order was passed.
- Family partitions, when properly documented and recognized by courts, are binding on the parties.
- The conduct of parties in a litigation can be a factor in determining the outcome of the case.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, other than setting aside the High Court’s findings and upholding the sale deed executed by defendant No. 7 in favor of defendant No. 9 regarding Survey No. 106/2.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a court cannot rely on evidence of a fact which was not pleaded in the original suit and for which an amendment to include the same was rejected by the trial court. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that evidence cannot be led beyond pleadings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai vs. V. Kumar Vamanrao underscores the importance of pleadings in legal proceedings. The Court overturned the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing that courts cannot rely on evidence of a partition that was not pleaded in the original suit and for which an amendment was specifically rejected. The judgment reinforces the principle that prior court decrees should not be set aside without a proper challenge. The Supreme Court upheld the sale deed executed by defendant No. 7 in favor of defendant No. 9.