Bhagwati Prasad v Chandramaul

• The plaintiff owned the plot and claimed the defendant was his tenant; he sought ejectment and arrears of rent.
• The defendant admitted the plaintiff's title and set up an agreement under which he was in possession and had built the house.
• Both sides led evidence on their pleas. Tenancy was not proved, and the High Court decreed ejectment on the ground of licence.

1. Can a court grant relief on a ground (licence) that the plaintiff did not expressly plead?

• The general rule is that relief must be founded on the pleadings. A party cannot sustain a claim on an entirely new ground that was not covered, directly or by necessary implication, by the issues or the trial.
• But considerations of form cannot override substance. If a plea is covered by an issue by implication, the parties knew it was involved in the trial, and evidence was led on it, the absence of an express pleading does not disentitle a party from relying on it.
• Here both pleas rested on the common basis that the plaintiff was owner and the defendant was in possession by his permission; the only possible relationships were tenancy or licence. The defendant was not taken by surprise.
• Result: the defendant's appeal was dismissed and the decree for ejectment stood.

The court looks at the substance of the pleadings and trial: a plea not expressly pleaded may be decided if the parties knew it was in issue and led evidence on it, but a wholly new case outside the pleadings and issues cannot be made out.