Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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