# Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Ramji Das Agarwal

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 219
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-09
- **Case number:** SECOND APPEAL No. 752 of 1999
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-sharma-v-ramji-das-agarwal-44441
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Second Appeal - Or. VI Rule 2 C.P.C.-
Admissibility of judgment rendered in
earlier suit between parties - Principle of
pleading is to set out the material facts,
which constitute claim and state cause
of action - Evidence not required to be
pleaded
-
Adversary
party
has
opportunity to refute the evidence of
other party - Documentary evidence of
earlier judgement to fortify landlordtenant relationship need not to be
pleaded - Trial court lawfully received
judgement as evidence - Lower appellate
court, having contrary view erred -
Substantial question of law answered
posit ively - Appeal allowed. (E-1)

## Text

1 All. Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. Ramji Das Agarwal
219
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

SECOND APPEAL No. 752 of 1999

Ramesh Chandra Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
Ramji Das Agarwal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ramji Das Agarwal.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri R.P. Tiwari, Sri Rishikesh Tripathi.

A. Second Appeal - Or. VI Rule 2 C.P.C.-
Admissibility of judgment rendered in
earlier suit between parties - Principle of
pleading is to set out the material facts,
which constitute claim and state cause
of action - Evidence not required to be
pleaded
-
Adversary
party
has
opportunity to refute the evidence of
other party - Documentary evidence of
earlier judgement to fortify landlordtenant relationship need not to be
pleaded - Trial court lawfully received
judgement as evidence - Lower appellate
court, having contrary view erred -
Substantial question of law answered
posit ively - Appeal allowed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. This second appeal arises out of
judgment and decree dated 12.02.1999 in
Civil Appeal No. 179 of 1994 (Ramji Das
Agarwal Vs Ramesh Chandra Sharma)
rendered by the learned Additional
District Judge IV, Jhansi, which set aside
the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1994
entered by Additional Munsif 3rd, Jhansi.

2. The plaintiff-appellant brought
civil action for eviction, of the defendantrespondent, from the premises in dispute,
by instituting Original Suit No. 260 of
1989 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs Ramji
Das Agarwal) before the III Additional
Munsif, Jhansi.

3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant,
as set out in the plaint, was that the
plaintiff is the landlord of the property in
dispute. The defendant-respondent is a
tenant in the disputed property. The rent
of the property which was payable by the
defendant tenant was at the rate of Rs.
300/- per month. A notice terminating the
tenancy was served upon the defendantrespondent by the plaintiff-appellant.

4. The defendant-respondent refuted
the contents of the plaint and filed a
written statement. He denied the landlord
tenant relationship, with the plaintiffappellant.

5. The learned trial court framed
various
issues
after
exchange
of
pleadings. The issue which remains
relevant to date, is issue no. 1 framed by
the learned trial court, "whether the
defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff in the
property in dispute, and was liable to pay
a rent of Rs. 300/- per month, in his
capacity as the tenant?" The learned trial
court considered the pleadings of the
parties, adverted to the evidences tendered
and returned a finding on the aforesaid
issue.

6. The learned trial court, noticed
the oral evidence of the plaintiff-appellant
PW-1 Ramesh Chand, wherein he called
reference
to
the
suit
between
the
defendant and the father of the plaintiff,
registered as Original Suit no. 738 of
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1969 (Ram Swaroop Sharma Vs Ramji
Das Agarwal). In the said suit a
compromise was executed between the
parties on 01.03.1987. In terms of the
compromise the defendant-respondent,
was required to pay a rent of Rs. 300 per
month, in regard to the disputed property.
The plaintiff further testified, that the
defendant did not pay the rent as agreed to
between the parties, in the compromise. It
was specifically asserted, before the
learned trial court, by the plaintiff, that
the defendant Ramji Das Agarwal was the
tenant in the disputed property, and the
plaintiff was the landlord/owner thereof.
The stand of the defendant was also
considered.

7. The judgment of the trial court, in
Original Suit no. 738 of 1969 (Ram
Swaroop and others Vs Ramji Das and
others), was received in evidence, to
prove the landlord tenant relationship
between the plaintiff-appellant and the
defendant-respondent.

8. The defendant admitted receipt of
the notice, terminating the tenancy. The
testimony of the defendant, before the
learned
trial
court,
denying
the
compromise which was numbered as
Paper no. 90-A, was disbelieved by the
learned trial court.

9. In the wake of the aforesaid
pleadings and evidence the learned trial
court, found that the landlord tenant
relationship between the plaintiff and the
defendant stood established. The rent of
Rs. 300/- per month was held payable by
the defendant to the plaintiff towards rent.
The defendant-respondent had defaulted
in payment of the rent to the landlord
(plaintiff-appellant) and he was liable to
be evicted. The stand of the defendant that
he was not the tenant in the premises in
question was invalidated by the learned
trial court.

10. On these terms the learned trial
court rendered a judgment and decreed
the suit on 22.11.1994.

11. Aggrieved the defendant took
the judgment and decree of the learned
trial court in appeal, by instituting Civil
Appeal no. 179 of 1994 (Ramji Das
Agarwal Vs Ramesh Chandra Sharma).

12.

The
only
point
for
determination, before the learned first
appellate court, was the admissibility of
the judgment of Original Suit no. 738 of
1969 (Ram Swaroop and others Vs Ramji
Das and others), in evidence. The learned
first appellate court, found that the plaint
made no reference of the judgment of the
trial court rendered in Original Suit no.
738 of 1969 (Ram Swaroop and others Vs
Ramji Das and others). The learned
appellate court, ruled that the said
judgment was not liable to be admitted in
evidence, on the foot, that no pleading in
regard thereto was taken in the plaint.

13. Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned
counsel for the appellant, submits that the
learned appellate court, had misdirected
itself in law by discarding the judgment in
Original Suit no. 738 of 1969 (Ram
Swaroop and others Vs Ramji Das and
others) between the parties. The judgment
was admissible in evidence. The plaintiff
was only required to plead the facts and
not evidence. He calls attention to Order
VI Rule2 CPC.

14. Per contra, Sri Mangala Prasad
Rai, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of
the defendant-respondent, assisted by Sri
Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel,
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. Ramji Das Agarwal
221
submits that the plaintiff had not taken
any pleading in regard to the judgment in
Original Suit no. 738 of 1969. In absence
of such pleading the learned appellate
court rightly declined to receive the same
in evidence.

15. The substantial question of law
is being framed with consent of parties.

16. The following substantial
question of law arises for determination in
this appeal:

"Whether the appellate court,
misdirected itself in law by holding that
the judgment in Original Suit no. 738 of
1969, which was appended to the plaint,
was inadmissible in evidence, on the foot
that no pleadings in regard to the said
judgment were made in the plaint?"

17 . The basic and cardinal rules of
pleadings are set out in Order VI CPC.
The rules of Order VI which are relevant
are extracted hereunder:

"2. Pleading to state material facts
and not evidence

(1)
Every
pleading
shall
contain, and contain only a statement in a
concise form of the material facts on
which the party pleading relies for his
claim or defence as the case may be, but
not the evidence by which they are to be
proved.

(2) Every pleading shall,
when
necessary,
be
divided
into
paragraphs,
numbered
consecutively,
each allegation being, so far as is
convenient, contained in a separate
paragraph."

18. The purpose of pleadings in the
relevant provisions of CPC extracted
earlier is clear, while scope of tendering
evidence is also well settled. The rule of
pleadings embodied in Order VI CPC,
was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in Popat and Kotecha Property
Vs
State
Bank
of
India
Staff
Association, reported at (2005) 7 SCC
510. Essentially reiterating the statutory
mandate the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
thus:

"21. Order VI Rule 2(1) of the
Code states the basic and cardinal rule of
pleadings and declares that the pleading
has to state material facts and not the
evidence. It mandates that every pleading
shall contain, and contain only, a
statement in a concise form of the
material facts on which the party pleading
relies for his claim or defence, as the case
may be, but not the evidence by which
they are to be proved."

19. The purpose of plaint, is to set
out the material facts which constitute the
claim, and state the cause of action of the
suit. Apart from this, the rules regarding
pleadings, serve another salutary purpose.
The pleadings alert the opposite party to
the case of the adversary (plaintiff in this
case).

This enables the opposite party to
refute the case of the plaintiff and/or to
tender its defence and evidence in that
regard. The rule of pleadings, thus
precludes a party from springing a
surprise on its adversary, by bringing a
case which the latter was not aware of and
hence could not defend against.

20. Evidence, on the other hand, is
tendered by a party in support of or to
establish its case set out in its pleadings
(in this case the plaint). Hence evidence is
not required to be pleaded. However, as
regards the evidence tendered by a
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plaintiff or any party, the adversary (in
this case the defendant-respondent), has
ample opportunity to meet or refute the
same. Oral evidence of witnesses, can be
impeached during cross examination. In
case
of
documentary
evidence,
the
adversary
party
can
challenge
the
admissibility or disprove the document
before the court.

21. Coming to the established facts
of the case, the plaint clearly stated that
there was a landlord tenant relationship
between the plaintiff-appellant and the
defendant-respondent. The judgment of
the trial court in Original Suit No. 738 of
1969 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs Ramji
Das Agarwal) was appended to the list of
documents attached to the plaint.

22. The judgment of the trial court
in Original Suit No. 738 of 1969 (Ramesh
Chandra Sharma Vs Ramji Das Agarwal)
was passed on the foot of compromise
between the parties. The judgment and the
compromise
therein,
evidenced
the
landlord tenant relationship between the
plaintiff-appellant (his predecessors in
interest) and the defendant-respondent.

23. The documentary evidence in the
shape of judgment of the trial court in Original
Suit No. 738 of 1969 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma
Vs Ramji Das Agarwal) is consistent with the
pleadings made in the plaint. The judgment of
the trial court in Original Suit No. 738 of 1969
(Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs Ramji Das
Agarwal) was introduced as documentary
evidence to fortify the landlord tenant
relationship between the plaintiff-appellant and
defendant-respondent, as set out in the plaint and
to prevent the defendant-respondent from
resiling from his earlier admission.

24. In light of the established state
of facts and statement of law narrated in
the preceding paragraphs, the judgment of
the court rendered in Original Suit No.
738 of 1969 (Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs
Ramji Das Agarwal) was admissible in
evidence. There was no requirement, to
take a pleading in the plaint, with regard
to such documentary evidence introduced
by the plaintiff-appellant. The learned
appellate court erred in not receiving the
said judgment in evidence.

25. The learned trial court, in its
judgment dated 22.11.1994, rightly
found the landlord tenant relationship
between
theplaintiff-appellant
and
defendant-respondent. Trial court lawfully
received the judgment in Original Suit
No. 738 of 1969 in evidence. Finding of
the trial court, that the defendantrespondent had defaulted in payment of
rent, and the consequent order of his
eviction, from the disputed premises, are
impeccable and cannot be faulted with.
The
judgment
and
decree
dated
22.11.1994, of the trial court, does not
suffer from any infirmity, and is liable to
be upheld.

26. The substantial question of law
is answered as follows:

The first appellate court, misdirected
itself in law, by finding that the judgment
in Original Suit No. 738 of 1969 (Ramesh
Chandra Sharma Vs Ramji Das Agarwal),
was not admissible in evidence and erred
by not considering the same, on the foot
that no pleadings in that regard to the said
judgment were made in the plaint.

27. The substantial question of law,
is thus answered in the affirmative, in
favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The
judgment of the learned appellate court is
unsustainable in law and cannot stand.
1 All. Laxman Singh Vs. Bhagwati Singh
223
The judgment and decree of the appellate
court, dated 12.02.1999, passed by IV
Additional District Judge, Jhansi in Civil
Appeal no. 179 of 1994 (Ramji Das
Agarwal Vs Ramesh Chandra Sharma) is
set aside. The judgment and decree dated
22.11.1994 rendered by the learned IIIrd
Additional Munsif, Jhansi in Original Suit
No. 260 of 1989 (Ramesh Chandra
Sharma Vs Ramji Agarwal alias Ramji
Das Agarwal) is affirmed.

28. The second appeal is allowed.
--------
APPELLATEJURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

SECOND APPEAL No.2 of 1983

Laxman Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Bhagwati Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ramesh Singh,Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, Sri
R.S. Maurya, Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri G.M. Tripathi, Sri C.M. Shukla, Sri
Indra Raj Singh, Sri Prabhakar Dubey

A. Second Appeal - Section 100 C.P.C. -
Absence of jurisdiction in Civil Court - Bar
imposed by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A & L.R.
Act, 1951 - Decree of declaration of
cancellation of will by both court below -
Status of tenure holders involved - Though
cancellation of will-deed was the main
relief, but real relief was transfer of
property from possession of defendant to
plaintiff - Declaration of tenancy right is real
relief, which can be granted by revenue
court
-
Substantial
question
of
law
answered positively holding Civil suit is not
maintainable - Second Appeal allowed.

B. Second Appeal - Section 331 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1951 - Determining
factor to decide the jurisdiction is real
cause of action - It is the pith and
substance, which is to be seen, not the
language used, to oust jurisdiction, is to
be seen - Principle laid down.

C. Second Appeal - Expression 'any relief'
used in s. 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - is
of wide import. It means not only relief
claimed, but also includes relief arising
out of cause of action, which led Plaintiff
to invoke jurisdiction of a court of law -
Principle laid down.

D. Second Appeal - Determining factor
for a matter to be entertained only by
revenue court - More than one relief
sought, but no such relief can be granted
without declaring tenancy right - relief of
injunction and possession sought. Name
of
plaintiff
not
recorded.
Without
declaration of tenancy right no further
relief can be granted - Suit is cognizable
by Revenue court - Principle laid down.
 (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kunal Ravi Singh,
Advocate, for appellant. None appeared
on behalf of respondents despite the case
having been called in revise. Hence, I
proceed to hear and decide this case
finally after hearing learned counsel for
appellant.

2. This is defendant's appeal filed
under Section 100 Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to
as "CPC") arising from judgment and
decree dated 12.05.1978 passed by Sri
S.C. Bose, Munsif, Basti in Original
Suit No. 213 of 1972 decreeing the suit
which has been confirmed by judgment