Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. I shall now take up the short question involved in point No. 6 of learned Counsel for the appellants. I have no hesitation in holding that there is much substance in the contention put forward that the Lower Appellate Court was absolutely unjustified in holding that the lands in the present suit were not. those that were involved in Title Suit No. 30 of 1933. These are two strong reasons which would vitiate such a finding of the Lower Appellate Court. I have set out in detail the case of the plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint. Nowhere has it been pleaded nor could anything be shown to us in the plaint by Mr. K. D. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that there was any pleading to this effect nor was any issue on such a question of fact raised before the trial Court nor was it canvassed there even in course of argument. It is a well settled principle of law tbat where a claim has never been made in the pleadings presented on a question of fact no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward. (See Saddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran, AIR 1930 PC 57 (1)).