“No Pleadings, No Possession” – Supreme Court Re-affirms that Adverse Possession Must Be Specifically Pleaded before it can be Adjudicated

1. Introduction

Kishundeo Rout v. Govind Rao (2025 INSC 956) presented the Supreme Court of India with a familiar but contentious issue in property law: Can a court grant relief on the basis of adverse possession when the plaintiff has never pleaded it?
The case traversed four judicial tiers—Trial Court, District (First Appellate) Court, High Court (Second Appeal) and finally the Supreme Court—before settling an important procedural principle that cuts across all civil litigation: pleadings frame the battle-ground, and courts cannot travel beyond them.

Parties:

Plaintiffs / Petitioners (SLP): Kishundeo Rout & Others (heirs of original seller, Sudama Devi).
Defendants / Respondents: Govind Rao & Others (purchasers under Sale Deed No. 256 of 03-02-1997).

Dispute Synopsis: The plaintiffs sued in 1999 to declare the 1997 sale deed “bogus” and sought confirmation (and if necessary, recovery) of possession. The defendants asserted title under the deed. Across two decades of litigation, the First Appellate Court eventually decreed the suit not by invalidating the sale deed, but by framing a brand-new issue of adverse possession (never pleaded) and holding that the plaintiffs’ possession had matured by 2012. The High Court reversed, and the matter reached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court (Justices J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan) dismissed the SLP, thereby:

Affirming the High Court’s view that adverse possession must be specifically pleaded, placed in issue, and supported by proof before it can be granted.
Holding that an appellate court cannot introduce an adverse-possession issue suo motu when neither party pleaded it at trial.
Re-stating the principle of secundum allegata et probata (decision must accord with both pleading and proof).

Consequently, the Trial Court’s original dismissal of the 1999 suit stands restored, and the plaintiffs’ attempt to use adverse possession as an afterthought fails.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Ganda Singh v. Ram Narain Singh (ILR 1959 P&H 385) – Full Bench authority emphasising that foundation for adverse-possession pleas must appear in pleadings and issues. The Supreme Court drew heavily on this ratio.
RAVINDER KAUR Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (AIR 2019 SC 3827) – Recognised that perfected adverse possession can be used as a “sword” as well as a “shield”. The First Appellate Court relied on this to justify decreeing on adverse possession; the Supreme Court clarified that RAVINDER KAUR presupposes proper pleadings.
Classic Privy Council & High Court authorities (e.g., Eshan Chunder Singh, Ram Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, Bara Banki, Krishna Churn Baisack) reinforcing the maxim that a case must be decided within the four corners of pleadings.
Municipal Board v. Ram Sri (1931 All 670); Nepen Bala Debi v. Siti Kanta Banerji (1910 Cal) – distinguished instances where courts allowed an un-pleaded adverse-possession defence because the necessary facts were already admitted. Supreme Court held that such circumstances were absent here.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

Pleadings govern adjudication. Order VI Rule 1 CPC defines pleadings; Order XV issues. Section 96/107 CPC does not allow an appellate court to travel beyond issues unless the underlying facts are admitted and no prejudice results.
Adverse possession is fact-intensive. It requires a party to plead (and prove) date of entry, nature of hostility, continuity, publicity and knowledge. Absent such details, the defence cannot be presumed.
Absence of foundational facts. Neither plaint nor written statement alleged hostile possession; Trial Court framed no issue; hence the First Appellate Court’s newly framed “Issue on Adverse Possession” was impermissible.
No surprise to defendants rule. Allowing new pleas at appellate stage would prejudice the non-pleading party, violating natural justice.
Distinction between “title” and “possession”. While RAVINDER KAUR expanded the offensive use of adverse possession, it never diluted the procedural necessity of pleading.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

The judgment cements a procedural precedent that will resonate throughout Indian civil litigation:

Appellate courts must refrain from granting relief on un-pleaded grounds, especially fact-laden claims like adverse possession.
Litigants seeking to rely on adverse possession must front-load the requisite particulars at the plaint/written-statement stage.
First appellate courts may still frame additional issues, but only within the frame of existing pleadings or when facts are admitted.
The decision tonically limits misuse of RAVINDER KAUR by clarifying that it does not override pleading rules.
Practically, parties in long-running property suits can no longer hope to “convert” weaknesses in their title into adverse-possession claims mid-stream.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Adverse Possession: A method of acquiring legal title by occupying land openly, continuously, and hostilely for the statutory period (Art. 65 Limitation Act – 12 years). It is not automatic; it must be pleaded and proven.
Pleadings: Formal written statements (plaint, written statement) outlining material facts; they define the parameters of the trial.
Issue: A point of fact or law in dispute, framed by court under Order XIV CPC to guide evidence.
Secundum allegata et probata: Latin maxim meaning “according to what is alleged and proved”. A court cannot grant relief on a case neither alleged nor proven.
Sword vs. Shield: Using adverse possession offensively (as plaintiff to recover possession) or defensively (as defendant to resist ejectment). Both uses are allowed—provided they are pleaded.
Tacking: The principle by which successive possessors combine their periods of possession to meet the limitation period. Requires explicit pleading.

5. Conclusion

Kishundeo Rout v. Govind Rao is not a revolutionary property-law decision; instead, it is a clarion call to procedural discipline. By refusing to entertain an appellate court’s unsolicited foray into adverse possession, the Supreme Court reinforces two bedrock notions:

Pleadings are paramount. They serve as both map and compass for civil adjudication.
Adverse possession is a serious, fact-heavy claim. Courts will not infer it; litigants must articulate and substantiate it from the outset.

The decision thus fortifies fairness in litigation, curbs surprise judgments, and provides clearer guidance to trial and appellate courts alike. Future litigants seeking to invoke adverse possession—or any fact-dependent defence—must now be meticulous in their pleadings, lest they confront the Supreme Court’s succinct admonition: “No Pleadings, No Possession.”