Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs v Bishun Narain Inter College

Facts

Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava, the owner of premises in Lucknow, by letter dated 26 November 1941 informed the Education Inspector that he had donated the building free of rent as his permanent contribution to a school. The school was recognised and, without objection, raised permanent constructions on the open land. Bhargava later mortgaged and in 1961 sold the property to Ram Sarup Gupta, who served a termination notice and sued the school for possession, contending the licence was revocable. The trial and appellate courts found the licence irrevocable and dismissed the suit.

Issues

• Whether the licence granted to the school was irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882
• Whether the defendants had properly pleaded the irrevocable character of the licence, and if not, whether the plaintiff could raise the absence of such pleading in appeal where the parties had gone to trial and led evidence on the point

Arguments

The appellant (purchaser) contended that the defendants had failed to raise the requisite pleadings on irrevocability, that no issue was framed and no evidence led on the terms of the licence, and that 'acting upon the licence' was neither pleaded nor proved. The respondents (school) contended that the necessary pleadings had in substance been raised, that the courts had recorded concurrent factual findings on the evidence that the licence was irrevocable and that permanent constructions were made in pursuance of it.

Held

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that pleadings should receive a liberal construction and that no pedantic or hair-splitting approach should be adopted to defeat justice; the substance of the pleadings, not their form, must be looked at. Where the parties, despite any deficiency in the pleadings, understood the real controversy, went to trial, led evidence and contested the point, it is not open to a party to raise the objection of absence of pleadings for the first time in appeal. On the merits, the Court found all the conditions of Section 60(b) of the Easements Act satisfied—the school had executed permanent works on the land, acting upon the licence and incurring expenses—so the licence was irrevocable. The suit for possession therefore failed.

Ratio decidendi

Pleadings are to be construed liberally and as a whole, looking to their substance rather than form; a mere defect or absence of an express pleading does not defeat a claim or defence where the opposite party knew the case it had to meet and the matter was in fact tried, with evidence led, between the parties—such an objection cannot be entertained for the first time in appeal.

Significance

A leading authority on the construction of pleadings under Order VI CPC, repeatedly followed for the propositions that pleadings must be read liberally and that an objection as to want of pleadings cannot be raised in appeal once the parties have gone to trial on the issue and adduced evidence. It is also a key case on irrevocable licences coupled with permanent constructions under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.

Related