Pleading limits and proof of documents: photocopies cannot establish liability without original documents or admissible secondary evidence.
A decree cannot be sustained on a case not pleaded, because evidence alone cannot support a new factual foundation introduced beyond the written statement. The HC also held that photostat copies of documents could not fasten liability without production of the originals, proof of execution, or a lawful basis for secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Mere marking of photocopies as exhibits did not prove their contents or execution, and the absence of attesting witness evidence was fatal. The first appellate court's reversal was therefore set aside and the trial court's decree restored.
Issues: (i) Whether the first appellate court could sustain findings on a case not pleaded by the defendants. (ii) Whether photostat copies of documents could be relied upon to fasten liability without proof of execution and without production of the original documents.
Issue (i): Whether the first appellate court could sustain findings on a case not pleaded by the defendants.
Analysis: The written statement proceeded on the footing that the amount was recoverable for a loan allegedly advanced to Mukhtiar Singh, with Avtar Singh said to be a guarantor. The alternative stand that Avtar Singh himself was the loanee was not permitted to be introduced by amendment, and that order had attained finality. A finding based on a case beyond the pleadings could not therefore be supported on the basis of evidence alone.
Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the appellant and against the defendants.
Issue (ii): Whether photostat copies of documents could be relied upon to fasten liability without proof of execution and without production of the original documents.
Analysis: The original mortgage deed and other primary documents were not produced, no proper foundation for secondary evidence was laid, and the attesting witnesses were not examined. Mere marking of photocopies as exhibits did not prove their contents or execution. In the absence of admissible evidence, liability could not be fastened on the basis of such copies. The decision also applied the rule governing secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the appellant and against the defendants.
Final Conclusion: The reversal by the first appellate court could not stand, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff from the trial court was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: A decree cannot be sustained on a case not pleaded, and photocopies of documents cannot be treated as proof of liability unless the original is produced or secondary evidence is lawfully admissible and the execution of the document is proved by admissible evidence.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
