DOMAJI Vs. TULSHIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a Suit for mesne profits. The plaintiff-appellant in this Court urges that three items of consent money and the value of certain manure should have been included in the profits. The learned judge of first appeal states that he does hot discuss the arguments relating to consent money as the plaintiff should have been aware of transfers and should have made a plea about the consent money from the outset. Now, this is a suit for accounts. The plaintiff in his plaint had merely to ask the defendant to render an account, and this is what he did. The defendant put in an account. Then the plaintiff, on 2nd March 1925, made objections. He stated: The amount of Sewai income given by the defendant is denied. Plaintiff files a schedule for the years in suit.

(2.) THE issue framed on this point was:

(3.) I agree with the lower appellate Court that suits cannot be tried in this way. Where there are definite pleadings and a definite issue on those pleadings is framed, the finding must be confined to matters raised in the issue. It is of course open to the parties to ask that fresh pleadings should be allowed and additional issues struck. But if they, although represented by counsel, produce evidence on matters which do not form part of the issues, this evidence should be disregarded. There was not even, in the-lower appellate Court, a prayer to allow to amend the pleadings. Such a prayer is made to me, but I refuse to allow these items to be put in issue at this stage. The appeal, so far as regards the consent money, therefore, fails.