Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Evidence Must Align with Pleadings: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment handed down by the High Court of Kerala, the principle of legal proceedings requiring that “Evidence Must Align with Pleadings” has been reaffirmed. The judgment, delivered by Justice A. BADHARUDEEN on September 20, 2023, emphasized the crucial importance of consistency between the allegations made in pleadings and the evidence presented in court.

The case in question was a civil appeal involving a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The defendant in the case contended that the property in question was sold to a nominee of the plaintiff, which had not been pleaded in the written statement and had not been proved by evidence. This case highlighted the fundamental rule that parties in legal proceedings must adhere to their pleadings.

Justice A. BADHARUDEEN, in the judgment, referred to several legal precedents to support the principle. He cited the well-established rule that decisions in a case should be based on the grounds presented in the pleadings, and it is the case pleaded that must be found. The judgment emphasized that without an amendment of the pleadings, the court is not entitled to grant relief that was not asked for.

Furthermore, the judgment noted that one cannot succeed in a case by adducing evidence that is not supported by the pleadings. It emphasized that evidence not in conformity with the pleadings cannot be relied upon, and trial courts must work within the scope of pleadings and evidence.

The judgment also referred to a recent decision by the Supreme Court, underscoring that one can only let in evidence in tune with their pleadings, and evidence at variance with the pleadings cannot be considered.

In the result, the High Court upheld the principle that parties in a suit should not succeed by introducing evidence that is not in alignment with their pleadings. The judgment dismissed the appeal with costs to be borne by the respective parties.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the fundamental legal principle that legal proceedings should be based on what is pleaded, and evidence presented must align with the case put forth in pleadings.

Date of Decision: September 20, 2023

M.N.SAJI  Vs K.R.KRISHNAKUMAR,

Latest Legal News