1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23-4-2001 in O.S.No.7 of 1996 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Narasapur, West Godavari District. The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,56,540/- being stridhana amount of Rs.80,000/- of late Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma, wife of the 1st defendant and the value of 6 sovereigns of gold to a tune of Rs.21,000/- belonging to her, with interest thereon and for costs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows:

(a) It is pleaded that the 1st plaintiff is the husband of 2nd plaintiff and he is the father of 3rd plaintiff. The 1st defendant is the son of defendants 2 and 3. The 4th defendant is the brother of 1st defendant. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 have got two daughters. Their 2nd daughter Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma was married to the 1st defendant on 07-02-1993 in Narasapur as per Hindu usage and caste customs. At the time of negotiations of the marriage, the defendants demanded a sum of Rs.80,000/- and for presentation of 5 sovereigns of gold as bala todugu and one sovereign of gold ring to the 1st defendant. Accordingly, the 1st plaintiff through the 3rd plaintiff made a payment of Rs.70,000/- by way of deposit in S.B. A/c No.95/1424 relating to the 4th defendant lying with State Bank of India, Narasarapur, on 30-01-1993. The 3rd plaintiff signed the challan. The said amount so deposited with the 4th defendant, which is part of stridhana, belonged to Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma. Balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the defendants in the presence of elders at the bank premises on the even day. The defendants have no manner or right or title to the said amount.

(b) It is further pleaded that at the time of marriage of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma with the 1st defendant on 07-02-1993, a gold chain, a pair of gold bangles and a pair of gold ear studs, all weighing in 5 sovereigns were presented as bala todugu to Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma. A gold ring weighing one sovereign was given to the 1st defendant within one month from the date of marriage. Thus, in all 6 sovereigns of gold was given to the defendants as bala todugu of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma. Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma joined her husband. Since then, the defendants began harassing her physically and mentally to bring more money. When she refused to oblige their demands, the defendants killed her on 05-8-1993 at their house at Chittavaram. The 1st plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Narasapur Rural Police Station, in Crime No.32/1993 under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC.

(c) It is further pleaded that since Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma died intestate without procuring children, the defendants are bound to return stridhana property Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma. The defendants failed to return the same. They are liable to return the same. The plaintiffs are also entitled to interest at 18% per annum. The plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated 02-10-1994 for return of the said amount of the value of the jewellery. The defendants received the said notice and they got issued a reply dated 12-10-1994. The 4th defendant also sent a separate reply dated 12-10-1994. The 3rd plaintiff made the deposit, hence he is impleaded. Hence, the suit.

3. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant are as follows:

It is contended that the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiffs never paid any cash to the defendants. These defendants never went to bank on 30-01-1993. If really any amount was paid by the plaintiffs as alleged, it should have been only in the name of 1st defendant or as in the name of this defendant as he happened to be head of the family or at least in the name of 3rd defendant, who is the mother of 1st defendant. No amount can be deposited in the name of 4th defendant towards the alleged arrangement for provision of stridhana to late Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma. The plaintiffs do not possess capacity to pay cash of Rs.80,000/- or to present 5 sovereign of gold. The plaintiffs did not pay any amount either towards dowry or stridhana. There was no entrustment. The plaintiffs did not present any bala todugu. After the death of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma, the plaintiffs gave a false report. The suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. The defendants 1 and 3 filed a memo adopting the written statement of 2nd defendant.

5. Based upon the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

"(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for in the plaint

(2) Whether the defendants are liable to pay interest as claimed

(3) Whether there is a cause of action to file a suit against the defendants and

(4) To what relief "

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.B-1 to B-15 are marked. Exs.X-1 to X-3 are also marked for the plaintiffs.

7. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit without costs.

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court in dismissing the suit, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.

9. During the pendency of the appeal, the 3rd respondent died and respondents 5 to 7 are brought on record as her legal representatives vide Court order dated 31-01-2005 in A.S.M.P.No.94/2005.

10. Heard Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Guda Swathi, learned counsel, representing on behalf of Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel for the respondents.

11. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the plaintiffs proved about the factum of entrustment of an amount of Rs.70,000/- to the defendants in connection with the marriage of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma with the 1st defendant towards dowry and the plaintiffs also proved about the entrustment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- and also gold ornaments at the time of marriage of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma with the 1st defendant, to the defendants. Unfortunately, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit by came to wrong conclusion and that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the findings given by the learned trial Judge and that the appeal may be dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge.

13. Now, the points for determination in the present appeal are:

"(1) Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit and

(2) To what extent "

14. Point No.1: Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit The case of the plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff is the husband of 2nd plaintiff and he is the father of 3rd plaintiff. The 1st defendant is the son of defendants 2 and 3 and the 4th defendant is the brother of 1st defendant. The relationship of the parties as narrated in the plaint is not at all disputed by the respondents. It is also admitted by the defendants that the 1st defendant married one Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma, who is none other than the daughter of plaintiffs 1 and 2. The contention of appellants is that at the time of marriage of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma, they presented an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the defendants towards dowry and they also presented gold ornaments to the 1st defendant at the time of marriage. The respondents denied the same and that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for recovery of the alleged dowry amount as entrusted by the plaintiffs to the defendants, which was pleaded in the plaint.

15. The contention of plaintiffs 1 and 2 is that they have presented an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the defendants towards dowry for the purpose of marriage of their daughter Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma with the 1st defendant and they have deposited an amount of Rs.70,000/- in the account of 4th defendant and subsequently, the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- and gold ornaments were presented to the defendants at the time of marriage. As noticed supra, the entrustment of the said amount is disputed by the defendants. Therefore, the burden casts on the plaintiffs to prove that they have presented an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the defendants towards dowry for the purpose of the marriage of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma with the 1st defendant. As seen from the plaint averments, the said amount was given towards stridhana of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma. In the entire plaint, there is no whisper that the plaintiffs have presented an amount of Rs.80,000/- and gold ornaments to the defendants towards dowry at the time of marriage of the daughter of plaintiffs 1 and 2 with the 1st defendant. But, contrary to the pleadings in the plaint, P.W.1, for the first time, deposed in his evidence in chief-examination that an amount of Rs.80,000/- and gold ornaments were given for the purpose of dowry to the defendants. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 i.e., the 1st plaintiff, he admits in his evidence in cross-examination that he did not state before the Mandal Revenue Officer and so also before the Police that they paid an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards dowry in lump sum to the 2nd defendant at the time of marriage. Furthermore, another admission made by P.W.1 in his evidence is that they did not state before the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Police in connection with the case registered by the Police against the defendants that they presented gold ornaments to the defendants for the purpose of dowry in connection with the marriage of the daughter of plaintiffs 1 and 2 with the 1st defendant.

16. It is also to be noted that Ex.A-1 is the notice issued by the plaintiffs prior to institution of the suit. There is no whisper in Ex.A-1 notice that an amount of Rs.80,000/- and gold ornaments were given to the defendants for the purpose of dowry. It is the specific case of the appellants/plaintiffs that they have deposited an amount of Rs.70,000/- in the account of 4th defendant and the said amount was given towards dowry in connection with the marriage of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma with the 1st defendant. As stated supra, there is no averment in Ex.A-1 legal notice and so also in the plaint that they have presented an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards dowry in connection with the marriage of the daughter of plaintiffs 1 and 2 with the 1st defendant. It is not in dispute that the daughter of plaintiffs 1 and 2 Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma died subsequent to the marriage as issueless. Another contention taken by the plaintiffs is that they have presented cash of Rs.70,000/- to the 4th defendant on 30-01-1993. It was contended by the appellants that they presented gold jewellery to Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma and so also they presented a gold ring to the 1st defendant and cash of Rs.10,000/- to the defendants. Admittedly, the same is not at all proved by any evidence.

17. It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally well settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of the pleading is to enable the other party to know the case which was pleaded by the plaintiff.

18. It is also well settled that a decision of the case cannot be based on grounds outside pleadings of the parties, no evidence is permissible to be taken on record in the absence of pleadings in that aspect and no party can be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and in the absence of any pleadings in the plaint, contrary to the pleadings, evidence adduced by the parties cannot be looked into. This proposition is well supported by a catena of judgments. In the case of Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (2008) 17 SCC 491, the Apex Court held as follows:

“13. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. Therefore, the court cannot, on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant some other relief. The question before a court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the court could not be granted. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief, and when the defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief.”

19. Therefore, the legal position in this regard has been well settled by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments that in the absence of any pleading in the plaint, evidence adduced by the plaintiff contrary to the pleadings cannot be looked into and cannot be taken into consideration. The law is also well settled that an issue has been framed on considering the pleadings taken by both the parties, in the absence of pleadings the court cannot make out a case not pleaded. It is also more important that without any pleading before the trial Court, oral contention of the parties cannot be looked into and no credence will be given to the oral contention taken by the parties without any pleadings.

20. As noticed supra, subsequent to the marriage of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma with the 1st defendant, she died and she is no more. Therefore, as per Section 15 of the Indian Succession Act, the children and husband of deceased Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma are Class-I legal heirs. Admittedly, Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma is no more and she died issueless and so the 1st defendant, who is happened to be the husband of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma, is the sole legal heir of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma. Furthermore, a criminal case is filed against the defendants by the Police on the complaint given by the 1st appellant and a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been framed against the defendants and after completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the defendants for a charge under Section 302 of IPC and the defendants herein are acquitted in the sessions case filed by the Police. An appeal was filed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the said criminal appeal is also dismissed by this Court by confirming the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The same is not at all in dispute by both the parties.

21. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that on considering the entire material on record, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and the same is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference.

22. Point No.2:- To what extent

Resultantly, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 23-4-2001 in O.S.No.7 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narasapur. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the appeal.