Appellate Court cannot grant undivided share relief beyond pleadings or ignore earlier registered sale deeds.

The plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) filed a title suit seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession over 0.06 decimals of land (Schedule A).

He claimed purchase via a registered sale deed dated 23.11.1990 (Exhibit 1) from Gura Tiu (Defendant No. 3), asserting the land fell to Gura Tiu’s share via partition from the original recorded tenant, Chhota Pandu Ho.

The contesting Defendant (Appellant) claimed his second wife, Sumi Kui, had purchased the same land in 1961 (Exhibit C) from Bamia Ho (son of Ranku Ho), another descendant of the original tenant.

The Appellant further claimed inheritance from Sumi Kui and title by adverse possession.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the 1961 sale valid and the Appellant’s possession hostile.

The First Appellate Court reversed this, holding the 1961 sale doubtful because the vendor’s name wasn't in the 1917 Khatian, and declared the plaintiff had 1/18th share and right to joint possession.

1. Whether the court of appeal committed an error of law in reversing the trial court’s findings without complying with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC.

2. Whether the findings of the appellate court were perverse due to non-consideration of evidence (specifically P.W. 3, P.W. 7, Exhibits 1, 8, 8/A, and C) in their true perspective.

The court applied Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC regarding the appellate court’s power to pass any decree, noting it cannot grant relief beyond the scope of pleadings.

It relied on Union of India v. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. regarding the principle that a plaintiff in a title suit must succeed on the strength of their own title and not the weakness of the defendant's.

The court applied the rule from Prem Singh v. Birbal and Rattan Singh v. Nirmal Gill, establishing a legal presumption of validity for registered documents.

Furthermore, it emphasized that revenue entries (Khatians) do not confer title but are only evidence of possession or land revenue obligations (Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar).

The High Court found the Appellate Court erred by granting a 1/18th share to the plaintiff when the suit was not for partition and other co-sharers were not parties; this exceeded the scope of the pleadings and Order 41 Rule 33.

Regarding title, the High Court observed that while the Appellant failed to prove inheritance (as the second marriage was void under Hindu Law) or adverse possession (period fell short of 30 years for tribals), the plaintiff still bore the burden of proof.

The High Court held the Appellate Court’s rejection of the 1961 sale deed (Exhibit C) was perverse because P.W. 3 (plaintiff's own witness) admitted to witnessing the execution of Exhibit C by Bamia Ho, a descendant of the recorded tenant.

Since the 1961 registered deed was presumed valid and the plaintiff failed to prove a prior partition or that the 1961 vendor lacked interest, the land was already alienated before the plaintiff’s 1990 purchase.

The Court concluded that an appellate court cannot determine an undivided share in a title suit absence partition pleadings and necessary parties.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court.