Suit for eviction — Basis of tenancy — Failure to prove tenancy Where the suit is founded on landlord-tenant relationship and such tenancy is not proved, eviction cannot be granted merely on the basis of title, particularly when the defendant’s possession is admitted and independent of plaintiffs. (Paras 13–14)

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope

In second appeal under Section 100 CPC, interference is permissible only on substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings on failure to prove pleaded tenancy and existence of possession prior to purchase cannot be disturbed when the suit itself is founded on an unproved cause of action.
(Paras 9–15)

---

Pleadings — Proof — Relief outside pleadings

A party must succeed only on the case pleaded and proved. Relief cannot be granted on a cause of action not pleaded, nor can courts grant reliefs not prayed for.
(Paras 12–14)

---

Suit for eviction — Basis of tenancy — Failure to prove tenancy

Where the suit is founded on landlord-tenant relationship and such tenancy is not proved, eviction cannot be granted merely on the basis of title, particularly when the defendant’s possession is admitted and independent of plaintiffs.
(Paras 13–14)

---

Title — Recovery of possession — Necessity of proper cause of action

A plaintiff who pleads tenancy cannot seek recovery of possession on general title when tenancy fails, without pleading trespass or seeking declaration of title.
(Paras 14–16)

---

Declaration of title — Amendment refused — Finality

When amendment of plaint to seek declaration of title is refused and such order becomes final, the plaintiff cannot indirectly obtain the same relief through ejectment proceedings.
(Paras 8, 14–16)

---

Trial Court — Framing of issues — Failure

Granting relief without framing necessary issues regarding title, adverse possession, or nature of land (private land or poramboke) amounts to misdirection in law.
(Paras 14–15)

---

Evidence — Consideration of material not on record

The appellate court cannot rely upon material (FMB) not part of trial evidence or additional evidence properly received, as it causes prejudice and vitiates findings.
(Para 16)

---

Adverse possession — Burden

Failure of the defendant to prove adverse possession does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to recovery of possession when plaintiff’s pleaded cause of action itself fails.
(Paras 13–14)

---

Trespass — Distinct cause of action

Eviction of a trespasser requires a different cause of action, pleadings, court fee and relief. A suit framed on tenancy cannot be converted into one against a trespasser.
(Paras 14–15)

---

ANALYSIS (PARA-WISE SYNTHESIS)

1. Nature of suit and pleadings (Paras 3, 12–13)
   The plaintiffs pleaded a specific case of tenancy commencing in May 1983. They did not plead trespass, nor did they seek declaration of title.

2. Findings on tenancy and possession (Paras 7, 13)
   Both the trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that tenancy was not proved. Defendant’s possession was found to be independent and prior.

3. Error of trial court (Paras 14–15)
   The trial court granted eviction on title without framing an issue on title, without a prayer for declaration, and despite tenancy having failed.

4. Amendment for declaration — refusal (Paras 8, 14–16)
   Plaintiffs attempted to amend plaint to seek declaration during appeal. That amendment was set aside in CRP No.1265 of 1995, which attained finality.

5. Impropriety of shifting cause of action (Paras 14–16)
   Plaintiffs could not shift from a tenancy-based eviction suit to a title-based recovery or trespass action without proper pleadings.

6. Nature of land disputed (Paras 15–16)
   Defendant asserted poramboke land and long possession. No issue was framed on nature of land. Appellate court’s reliance on FMB not on record was improper.

7. Application of Supreme Court precedent (Paras 14–15)
   Court applied settled law that eviction against a trespasser requires proper pleadings and cause of action; plaintiffs failed to do so.

8. Result (Paras 15–16)
   Plaintiffs were held not entitled to any relief, and both second appeals were dismissed.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. A plaintiff must succeed strictly on the cause of action pleaded; when eviction is sought on the basis of tenancy and tenancy is not proved, relief cannot be granted on the basis of title alone.

2. Recovery of possession from a person in admitted possession requires a properly pleaded cause of action—either tenancy or trespass—with corresponding reliefs and court fee.

3. Courts cannot grant reliefs not prayed for, nor can they decide issues not framed.

4. Refusal of amendment to seek declaration of title, once final, bars indirect grant of the same relief.

5. Failure of the defendant to establish adverse possession does not cure defects in the plaintiff’s pleadings.

6. In second appeal, when findings are based on correct application of pleading and proof principles, no substantial question of law arises warranting interference.

7.