Pleading basis, joinder of co-owners, and part performance: relief failed on an unpleaded case, but section 53-A defence survived.

Relief cannot be granted on a cause of action not pleaded, and a plaintiff cannot abandon the pleaded foundation of the suit and obtain recovery on a different case. Where the property is joint family property or jointly owned, all persons directly interested must ordinarily be joined before the court, unless the plaintiff is duly authorised to sue alone; a single co-owner may sue a trespasser, but that exception did not apply here. An oral gift of immovable property is not a completed transfer under section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, yet a later written instrument recording the earlier arrangement and delivery of possession can support a defence under section 53-A in part performance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff could succeed on a cause of action different from and inconsistent with the case pleaded in the plaint; (ii) whether one member of a joint Hindu family or co-owner could ? no-alone sue for recovery of possession of joint family property without impleading the other persons interested; (iii) whether the oral gift of immovable property made at the time of marriage could be treated as valid, and whether the subsequent writing could support a defence under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Issue (i): whether the plaintiff could succeed on a cause of action different from and inconsistent with the case pleaded in the plaint

Analysis: The plaintiff had come to court asserting exclusive ownership and trespass by the defendant, but that case was found false. Relief cannot be granted on a case not pleaded, nor can a party be allowed to abandon the pleaded basis of the suit and obtain relief on an entirely different foundation. The rule that a case must be decided on the pleadings and issues framed was applied, and the exception based on matters fully put in issue and evidence was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The plaintiff could not be granted relief on a cause of action not pleaded and expressly disowned by him.

Issue (ii): whether one member of a joint Hindu family or co-owner could alone sue for recovery of possession of joint family property without impleading the other persons interested

Analysis: Where the property is found to belong to the joint family or to co-owners, the right is a single and indivisible right and all persons jointly interested must be before the court, unless the plaintiff sues as manager or as person otherwise authorised. A co-owner may sue a trespasser without impleading others, but that principle did not apply because the defendant was not found to be a trespasser and the plaintiff had denied the title of the other co-owners. Order 1 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not dispense with the necessity of joining all persons whose rights would be directly affected.

Conclusion: The plaintiff alone could not maintain the suit for recovery of possession.

Issue (iii): whether the oral gift of immovable property made at the time of marriage could be treated as valid, and whether the subsequent writing could support a defence under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act

Analysis: An oral gift of immovable property does not satisfy the requirement of section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, and section 9 could not be invoked to avoid the statutory requirement. However, a subsequent written instrument signed by the transferor that embodies the earlier oral arrangement and sets out its terms with reasonable certainty can satisfy section 53-A if possession has been delivered or continued in part performance. On the facts, the later document incorporated the terms of the earlier arrangement and the donee had been placed in possession. The plaintiff, who attested the document with knowledge of its contents, was also precluded from disputing the possession and validity of the arrangement.

Conclusion: The oral transfer was not valid as a completed gift, but the subsequent writing could be relied upon under section 53-A and the defence of part performance was available.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the plaintiff had not pleaded the case on which he sought relief, had not joined the necessary parties to vindicate a joint right, and could not dislodge the defendant's possession in the face of the established defence of part performance.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief must be founded on the case pleaded, and where property is jointly owned, all persons jointly entitled to the relief must be before the court unless the plaintiff is duly authorised; a subsequent written instrument can satisfy section 53-A if it records the earlier oral arrangement and the transferee is in possession in part performance.

---