None of the parties to a judicial proceeding can be allowed to adduce evidence in support of a contention not pleaded by it and the decision of a case cannot rest on such evidence.

 2023 YLR 687

None of the parties to a judicial proceeding can be allowed to adduce evidence in support of a contention not pleaded by it and the decision of a case cannot rest on such evidence.

When the respondent has not pleaded the particulars of alleged oral agreement and even the names of the witnesses in whose presence such agreement was reached at, the evidence produced by him would be considered beyond the pleadings and it is a settled and cardinal principle of law that no one can be allowed to prove his case beyond the scope of pleadings

Bare reading of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 makes it vivid that declaratory decree can only be passed to the effect of a pre-existing right which is being denied by some person. In the present case, admittedly the respondent based his claim on an oral agreement allegedly reached at between the respondent and present petitioner No.1 as back as in the year 1970 but perusal of the plaint shows that particulars of the land and of the alleged oral agreement are not detailed in the plaint, which otherwise ought to have been pleaded and proved and when the position is as such the subject agreement is void for uncertainty in terms of section 29 of the Contract Act, 1872 and consequently it cannot be specifically enforced as enunciated in section 21(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Therefore, when the respondent has yet to establish his right on the basis of alleged oral agreement, how can he claim a declaratory decree, because the petitioners have not denied his pre-existing right, which is pre-requisite for seeking a declaratory decree.