Kirpa Ram vs Jagdish And Khub Ram
1987 Latest Caselaw 276 Del

Citation : 1987 Latest Caselaw 276 Del
Judgement Date : 7 May, 1987

Delhi High Court

Kirpa Ram vs Jagdish And Khub Ram on 7 May, 1987

Equivalent citations: 32 (1987) DLT 241, 1988 RLR 206

Author: M Narain

Bench: M Narain

JUDGMENT

Mahinder Narain, J.

(1) This revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Shri Brajesh Kumar, Judge Small Cause Court dated 23/02/1983, in suit No. 1551of 1980 dated 30/10/1980.

(2) The suit was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 235-from Kirpa Ram, the petitioner. It was the case of the defendant /petitioner before me, that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the premises, and no rent Was, therefore, payable.

(3) In this case there was a dispute between the parties whether the plaintiffs were the owners of the premises in question. The plaintiffs asserted that they were owners of the premises in question, so it had to be proved by them. The plaintiffs had to prove that they are the-landlords. The plaintiffs purported to produce what is termed as a "Mukhtiamama"(General Power of Attorney). A "Mukhtiamama" is not a title deed, it only confers powers on another.

(4) The objection which was taken on behalf of the original defendant who is the petitioner before me, is that there is no pleading in the suit with respect to powers being given by a"Mukhtiamama" (General Power of Attorney), and that it is not permissible in law to look at any plea which has not been taken in the plaint.

(5) The objection taken by the defendant in the suit is wellfounded. It has been the law since 1930 Privy Council 57(1)(Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran & others) (1), that "no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward". This principle of law has been reiterated in a very large number of cases by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, among others are cases like S. N. Ranadev. Union of India & another, ,and Dattatraya v. Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar, (dead) by his legal representatives and others, .

(6) Inasmuch as the alleged "Mukhtiamama" (General Power of Attorney) was not pleaded in the plaint, it cannot be looked at. That is the document which was exhibited as Ex. P..1.It ought not to have bee

(7) In the circumstances, this revision succeeds. The order of the Judge Small Cause Court, dated 23/02/1983,is set aside. I, however, make no order as to costs.