Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. The importance of the pleadings and the necessity to plead a fact inorder to enable the party to prove it, is stated in Siddik Mohammed Shah v. Mt. Saran and Ors. AIR 1930 PC 57, wherein it is held that no amount of proof would be sufficient if there is no supporting pleading. This decision of the Privy Council was followed in several decisions including the decisions of this Court in Elizabeth v. Prakash Thomas 2005 (2) KIT 400. By the pleading, the opposite party is put to notice as to the facts which the party is likely to prove in the case. The opposite party would get an opportunity either to rebut such evidence or to disprove that fact, only if he knows from the pleadings what fact the other party proposes to prove. Astuteness in drafting of pleadings should not deprive the opposite party to know what facts he has to prove or disprove or what evidence he should adduce to prove that the case pleaded by his opponent is improbable. True, drafting of pleading is an art. But, it is not for the sake of art the pleading is intended. It is intended to facilitate a complete and effective adjudication of the disputes between the parties. For that purpose, the opposite party must know what his opponent has in mind. The Court also must be aware of the facts which are sought to be proved by each party. Art of drafting of pleading which deprives the opposite party from understanding what really the other party mean should not be encouraged. The defendants in the present case very cleverly put forth their pleadings in such a way virtually depriving the plaintiff from understanding what the defendants really contended. The court below rightly rejected the contention put forward by the first defendant that he has perfected title by adverse possession. The first defendant being the brother of the plaintiff was not expected to keep his hostile animus a secret. The first defendant withheld relevant facts even at the time of putting forth his plea in the written statement. The opposite party as well as the court was put in the dark as to what the defendants would prove at the time of the trial. In spite of all his astuteness in pleadings, in the chief examination itself, the first defendant stated in answer to a leading question that possession of the property was with the plaintiff all through out. Later he sought to withdraw that admission and stated that recently the first defendant started to possess the property. The defendants failed to plead and prove the necessary ingredients to constitute adverse possession and the suit was rightly decreed by the courts below.