1. Heard petitioner No.1/Shailendra Singh, who appeared in person for himself and also for petitioner No.2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel and Shri Uma Shankar Sahai, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.3 to 7.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking following main reliefs:-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated: 08.11.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner ( Admitration) Ayodhya Division Ayodhya in Revision No 00250/2019, Shailendra Singh & Others V/s Surendra Bhadur Singh & Others connected ANNEXURE NO.1 to this writ petition.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated: 31.01.2019 passed by the Tahsildar Sadar District - Ayodhya in Case No 696/1999-2000, Smt. Rumali Devi V/s Mu. Rajdei in under section - 34 LR Act In Village Adampur Tindoli, Pargana- Akabarpur, Tahsil Akabarpur, Distt- Ambedakar Nagar. connected as ANNEXURE NO.1 to this writ petition.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction nature of Mandamus directing the opposite party not to interfere on peaceful possession of the petitioner from the land in dispute situated at Village Adampur Tindoli, ParganaAkabarpur, Tahsil Akabarpur, Distt- Ambedakar Nagar during the pendency of the writ petition."

3. In nut shell, the present petition challenges the orders dated 31.01.2019 and 08.11.2019 passed in the proceedings related to mutation of name(s) in revenue records.

4. Before entering into the merits of the case, it would be apt to indicate that during the course of arguments, both the sides placed certain facts based upon the orders passed by the consolidation authorities in exercise of power under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") and placed the said orders before this Court and the same are relevant for the purposes of final disposal of the present petition and accordingly, this Court took note of the same. The orders referred are part of the brief submissions filed by the learned counsel for the side opposite, Shri U.S. Sahai, Advocate and the same are taken on record.

5. The relevant brief facts of the case are as under:-

(i) Vide order dated 11.06.1973, the Consolidation Officer (in short "C.O.") decided the claim(s) with regard to Gata Nos.8, 12, 55 and 69. The operative portion of the order dated 11.06.1973 reads as under:-

"In view of above discussed facts and circumstances the following orders are passed in respect of khata nos, 8, 12, 55 and 69.

1. The objectors Smt. Raj Del w/o Raghupati regarding khate nos. 8 and 12 are hereby rejected. The name of Ram Leut son of Jai Raj (pinor) aged twelve years under guardianship of Smt. Asha Kumari (pother) be recorded as co-tepant in khata nos, 8, 12, 55 and 69 along with his brothers Jagannath, Baijnath and Hanuman.

2. The objection of Hanoman and his real brothers against the entry of Smt. Phulraji w/o Thakurdin and Raj Del w/o Raghupati in khata nos. 8, 12, 55 and 69 are hereby rejected. The existing entry shall continue as usual.

3. In view of compromise dated 28.2.70 plot no. 107/0.11.10 of Khata no. 55 be recorded exclusively in the name of Jagannath, Baijnath, Hantman, Ram Lant sons of Jai Ram with 1/4th share each and the partition of remaining khatas be done as below:-

1. Smt. Raj Dei 1/2 share.

2. Baijnath 1/8 share.

3. Hanuman 1/8 share.

4. Jagannath 1/8 share.

5. Ram Lant 1/8 share.

The partition of khata no. 69 be done as below:-

1. Bansraj 1/2 share.

2. Smt. Raj Dei 1/4 share.

3. Hanuman 1/16 share.

9. Jagannath 1/16 share.

5. Baijnath 1/16 share.

6. Ram Lant 1/16 share.

The partition proceedings regarding khata nos 8 and 12 are hereby dropped as the plots comprised in these khatas are out of consolidation.

This order shall govern case file nos. 285/9803, 286/9804, 287/ 19805.. and 288/9806. Let the case files be consignet to R/Room after necessary amaldaramad.

Sd. Illegible.

C.O. Mauspur.

Sikawari.

11.06.1973"

(ii) Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.06.1973 passed by the C.O., two appeals i.e. Appeal No.15894 (Baij Nath and others vs. Smt. Raj Dei and others) and Appeal No.15895 (Hanoman and others vs. Smt. Raj Dei and others) were filed under Section 11 (1) of the Act of 1953. These appeals were dismissed vide order dated 30.08.1973 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in short "A.S.O.C.").

(iii) Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.1973 passed by A.S.O.C. and order dated 11.06.1973 passed by C.O., the revision No.4840 under Section 48 of the Act of 1953 was filed by Hanoman, Jagannath, Baij Nath and Ram Laut under the guardianship of Smt. Asha Kumari (mother) before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short "D.D.C."). This revision was dismissed vide order dated 21.07.1975.

(iv) Thereafter, the Writ Petition No.2373 of 1975, (Hanoman and others vs. Bans Raj and others) was filed before this Court. The Writ Court vide order dated 23.02.1981 quashed the order dated 21.07.1975 and remanded the matter back to D.D.C. for deciding the revision afresh.

(v) After the order of Writ Court, the D.D.C. vide order dated 11.09.1984 dismissed the said revision, which was pending as Revision No.1383, (Hanoman Singh and others vs. Bansraj Singh and others).

(vi) Challenging the orders passed in the consolidation proceedings, the Writ Petition No.168 (Consolidation) 1985 was filed by Hanoman, Jagannath, Baij Nath and Ram Laut. This Court dismissed the petition vide judgment and order dated 21.01.2014.

(vii) The order of writ court dated 21.01.2014 was assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)......../2014, No. CC 7591/2014 (Baijnath and others vs. Bansraj and others). This Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 09.05.2014.

(viii) Thus, from the aforesaid fact, it is crystal clear that the rights provided to Smt. Raj Dei widow of Raghupati by the C.O. vide order dated 11.06.1973 remained intact.

(ix) It would be apt to indicate that in the writ petition No.168 of 1985, (Hanoman and others vs. Baijnath and others), this Court passed the interim order dated 09.01.1985, which reads as under:

"Issue notice.

In the meantime the parties are directed to maintain status quo as regards possession and character of land."

(x) It would also be relevant to indicate here that this petition was filed by Hanoman, Jagannath, Baij Nath and Ram Laut impleading Bansraj and others as private opposite parties.

(xi) Smt. Raj Dei, widow of Raghupati, who died on 27.11.1999 and whose rights over the land in issue were decided by C.O. vide order dated 11.06.1973 and the said rights remained intact, executed the sale deed dated 30.10.1995 in favour of Smt. Rumali Devi, Smt. Heera Devi and Shri Narendra Bahadur Singh (opposite party Nos.6, 7 and 4).

(xii) At this stage, it would be apt to indicate that Smt. Raj Dei had earlier executed a registered 'Will' dated 05.10.1984 in favour of Surendra Bahadur, Narendra Bahadur and Jai Bahadur (opposite party Nos.3, 4 and 5).

(xiii) Based upon the sale deed dated 30.10.1995, a mutation case i.e. Case No.134/1297/696/1999-2000 (Smt. Rumali Devi vs. Mst. Raj Dei), under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") was filed and this case was allowed vide order dated 27.01.2014.

(xiv) Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an application for restoration/recall of order dated 27.01.2014. This application was registered, as appears from the record, as Case No.696/1999-2000 (Smt. Rumali Devi vs. Smt. Raj Dei). This application for restoration was dismissed vide impugned order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Ayodhya. The relevant portion of the order dated 31.01.2019 reads as under:-

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

(xv) Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2019, the revision No.00250 of 2019 (Shailendra Singh and others vs. Surendra Bahadur Singh and others) was filed under Section 219 of the Act of 1901. This revision was also dismissed by the revisional authority i.e. opposite party No.1-Additional Commissioner, (Administration), Division-Ayodhya, District-Ayodhya vide order dated 08.11.2019. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

6. Challenging the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2 and the order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the opposite party No.1, the present petition has been filed. The challenge has been made to these orders on the following grounds:-

"A. BECAUSE, the petitioner filed the restoration application before the Tahsildar, Akbarpur District - Ambedkar Nagar in the under section - 201 LR Act In Village Adampur Tindoli, Pargana- Akabarpur, Tahsil Akabarpur, Distt- Ambedakar Nagar ageist the order dated 27.01.2014 Passed by the Tahsildar, Akbarpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

B. BECAUSE, the Tahsildar Sadar District - Ayodhya passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2019 in Case No 696/1999- 2000, Smt. Rumali Devi V/s Mu. Rajdei in under section - 34 LR Act In Village Adampur Tindoli, Pargana- Akabarpur, Tahsil Akabarpur, DisttAmbedakar Nagar on the ground that same has been passed in arbitrary and illegal manner against the provision of law.

B. BECAUSE, the Tahsildar Sadar District - Ayodhya passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2019 in Case No 696/1999- 2000, Smt. Rumali Devi V/s Mu. Rajdei in under section - 34 LR Act In Village Adampur Tindoli, Pargana- Akabarpur, Tahsil Akabarpur, DisttAmbedakar Nagar on the ground that same has been passed in arbitrary and illegal manner against the provision of law.

D. BECAUSE, the Additional Commissioner ( Admitration) Ayodhya Division Ayodhya passed the impugned order dated 08.11.2019 in Revision No 00250/2019, Shailendra Singh & Others V/s Surendra Bahadur Singh & Others on the ground that same has been passed in arbitrary and illegal manner against the provision of law.

E. BECAUSE, the land in dispute is in possession of petitioner till today and crops of the petitioner are standing on the land in dispute and continue cultivating on the said land, the petitioners have not dispossessed from the land up till now, same is in possession of the petitioners.

F. BECAUSE, the opposite party no. 1 is passed the order dated: 08.11.2019 & 31.01.2019, which is purely illegal, perverse, and unjust and against the principle of natural justice, equity and fair play.

G. BECAUSE, the opposite parties are not acting fairly in accordance with low and action of the opposite parties are unjust, improper and un constitutional and bed in the eyes of low.

H. BECAUSE, the opposite party no. 1 Additional Commissioner ( Admitration) Ayodhrit Petition No.168 (Consolidation) 1984ya Division Ayodhya passed the impugned order dated 08.11.2019 which is purely illegal, perverse, and unjust and against the principle of natural justice, equity and fair play.

I. BECAUSE, the act of opposite party is also illegal and also against the rules and regulation of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and also against the provisions of article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

J. BECAUSE, the view of facts and circumstances stated herein above, the indulgence of the Hon'ble Court has become essential because the opposite party wants to dispossess the petitioner forcefully

K. BECAUSE, the act of the opposite parties is totally illegal, and against the principles of natural justice That the act of the opposite parties is totally illegal, and against the principles of natural justice."

7. Assailing the impugned orders, Shri Shailedra Singh, in person, made following submissions:

a) Name of Smt. Raj Dei was wrongly indicated in the revenue records. In fact, she was not entitled to get her name mutated as per law in the revenue records and as such, Smt. Raj Dei was not having any right under the law to execute the sale deed dated 30.10.1995.

b) Sale deed dated 30.10.1995, the basis of claim of concerned private opposite parties in whose favour the initial order dated 27.01.2014 was passed in mutation proceedings by opposite party No.2, is void as the same was executed during the operation of interim order dated 09.01.1985.

c) Smt. Raj Dei was real sister of predecessor in interest of the petitioners and she was not entitled to share in the ancestral property and being so, her name was wrongly indicated in the revenue records and the transfer of land in issue through a registered sale deed dated 30.10.1995 is liable to be ignored for the reason(s) that Smt. Raj Dei was not entitled to share in the ancestral property and also that the sale deed was executed during the operation of interim order passed by the Writ Court on 09.01.1985.

d) In support of submissions, the reliance has been placed on the following judgments passed in the following cases:-

1. D.A. Desai and R.B. Mishra JJ.;1982 SCC 484,

2. Mool Chand Yadav and Another vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited Rampur and Others; (1982) 3 SCC 484 [LQ/SC/1982/147] .

3. Bhagat Ram (Dead) By Lrs vs Teja Singh (Dead) By Lrs.; AIR 2002 SCC 1.

4. Smt. Savitri Devi vs. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur and others; 2003 921) LCD 841

5. Sidheshwar Mukharjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh, AIR 1953 SCC 487;

6. M.V.S. Mkantkayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami, AIR 1966 SCC 470

7. Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh, AIR 1990 SCC 845);

8. Mulraj v. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj, AIR 1967 SCC 1386;

9. Surajit Singh v. Harbans Singh, 1995 (6) SCC 50 [LQ/SC/1995/886] ;

10. Government of A. P. v. Gudepu Sailoo, 2000 (4) SCC 625 [LQ/SC/2000/838] ;

11. Hansraj Tirathram v. Administrator, Municipality Jammu, AIR 1963 Kerala;

12. State of Bihar v. Rani Sana Bati Kumari, AIR 1961 SCC 221;

13. Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union, AIR 1970 SCC 1767;

14. Jyoti Limited v. Smt. Kanwaljit Kaur Bhasin, 1987 CrilJ 128 [LQ/MPHC/1985/278] ;

15. Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries Put. Ltd., AIR 1997 SCC 1240;

16. Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, 1999 (1) AWC 18 (SC): AIR 1998 SCC 2765;

17. Ram Roop Pandey v. R. K. Bhargava, AIR 1971 Allahabad 231;

18. Indu Tewari v. Ram Bahadur Chaudhari, AIR 1981 Allahabad 309;.

19. Rudratha v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1982 Karnataka 182;

21. Thakorial Parshottamdas v. Chandulal Chunilal AIR 1967 Gujarat 124;

22. Rachhpal Singh v. Gurdarshan Singh, AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 299;

23. State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1961 SCC 221;

24. Sitarami v. Ganesh Das, AIR 1973 Allahabad 449.

25. Magna v. Rustam, AIR 1963 Rajasthan;

26. Kochira Krishnan v. Joseph Desouza, AIR 1986 Kerala 63;

27. Eastern Trust Co. v. Makenzie Mann & Co. Ltd., AIR 1915 Privy Council 106;

28. Bimal Chandra Sen v. Mrs. Kamla Mathur, 1983 CriLJ 494 [LQ/MadHC/1982/234] ;

29. Andre Paul Terence Ambard v. Attorney General for Trinidad and Tabago, AIR 1936 Privy Council 141;

30. B. Yegnaryaniah, AIR 1974 Madras 313;

31. Homi Rustom G. Pardiawala v. Sub-Inspector Baig, AIR 1944 Lahore 196;

32. S. Abdul Karim v. M. K. Prakash, AIR 1976 SCC 859;

33. Jawand Singh Hakum Singh v. Om Prakash, AIR 1959 Punjab 632;

34. Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530 [LQ/SC/2001/1836] .

8. Opposing the present petition, Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 to 7 submitted as under:

(i) The initial order dated 27.01.2014 passed in the mutation proceedings was based upon the registered sale deed dated 30.10.1995 executed by Smt. Raj Dei (widow of Raghupati) in whose favour C.O. decided the case vide order dated 11.06.1973 and the said order is intact as would appear from the order dated 30.08.1973 and 11.09.1984 passed by consolidation authorities namely A.S.O.C. and D.D.C., respectively, and these orders have been affirmed by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2014 as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 21.04.2014, whereby, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal filed challenging the order dated 21.01.2014.

(ii) The sale deed executed by Smt. Raj Dei in favour of Smt. Rumali Devi, Smt. Heera Devi and Narendra Bahadur Singh (opposite party No.6, 7 and 4) has not been set aside or cancelled by the competent court of jurisdiction and till date, this sale deed dated 30.10.1995 is intact and thus, it is apparent that the application for restoration of case was moved just to harass these persons.

(iii) In sofaras the execution of sale deed dated 30.10.1995 during the operation of interim order dated 09.01.1985 is concerned, in the entire petition no ground has been taken on this aspect of the case and moreover, the petitioners have not placed any document based upon which it can be ascertained/deduced that the interim order dated 09.01.1985 was operative when the sale deed dated 30.10.1995 was executed and as such considering this aspect of the case as also the principles related to pleadings and proof the submissions based upon interim order dated 09.01.1985 are liable to be ignored.

(iv) In regard to the rights of Smt. Raj Dei over the property in issue, it is stated that rights have already been decided by the C.O. vide order dated 11.06.1973 and the same are intact till date and the question/dispute of title or rights over the land/property cannot be decided while dealing with the case of mutation. Prayer is to dismiss the present petition.

9. Considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. For coming to the conclusion, some facts are relevant to be considered, which are as under:-

(i) The C.O. vide order dated 11.06.1973 decided the rights of Smt. Raj Dei and in terms of this order, she became the owner of the property in issue.

(ii) The order dated 11.06.1973 is intact. It is for the reason that the appeals challenging the order dated 11.06.1973 were dismissed by A.S.O.C. vide order dated 30.08.1973 and thereafter, the revision challenging these orders was dismissed by D.D.C. vide order dated 11.09.1984 and thereafter, the writ petition challenging the orders passed by the consolidation authorities was also dismissed on 21.01.2014 and challenging the same, the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil).........../2014, No. CC 7591/2014 (Baijnath and others vs. Bansraj and others) was filed and the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the same vide order dated 09.05.2014.

(iii) Thus, from the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that the rights provided to Smt. Raj Dei by C.O. vide order dated 11.06.1973 remained intact.

(iv) Smt. Raj Dei executed sale deed dated 30.10.1995 in favour of Smt. Rumali Devi, Smt. Heera Devi and Narendra Bahadur Singh (opposite party No.6, 7 and 4).

(v) The sale deed dated 30.10.1995 is intact till date. In other words, sale deed dated 30.10.1995 has not been cancelled/ set aside by the competent court of jurisdiction.

(vi) The sale deed dated 30.10.1995 is the basis of final order dated 21.01.2014 passed in the mutation case in favour of Smt. Rumali Devi, Smt. Heera Devi and Narendra Bahadur Singh (opposite party No.6, 7 and 4) and to recall the final order dated 21.01.2014, the petitioners preferred the application.

(vii) From the above quoted portion(s) of the impugned order(s) dated 31.01.2019 and 08.11.2019 as also from the contents of the restoration application preferred by the petitioners with the prayer to recall the final order dated 21.01.2014 passed in mutation case and restoring the mutation case to its original number, it is evident that the petitioners for the purposes of recall of order dated 21.01.2014 raised the question of title.

(viii) The dispute/question of title/rights over the land/property in issue cannot be decided by the revenue authorities while dealing with the case of mutation. (vide: Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., (1997) 7 SCC 137 [LQ/SC/1997/899] ; Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58 [LQ/SC/2004/1105] ; Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 [LQ/SC/2007/506] ; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12 [LQ/SC/2008/1257] ; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368 [LQ/SC/2008/1416] ; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689 [LQ/SC/2015/242] ; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342 [LQ/SC/2017/420] ; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191 [LQ/SC/2019/170] ; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259 [LQ/SC/2019/1577] ; Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70 [LQ/SC/2019/626] and Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802).

(ix) It is also evident from the impugned orders that the same have been passed after taking note of the facts related to the orders passed by the consolidation authorities, sale deed dated 30.10.1995 as also the order(s) passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court as also the case set up by the petitioners for recalling of final order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the opposite party No.2 in mutation case.

11. Considered the aforesaid facts including the facts related to rights of Smt. Raj Dei over the property in issue and also that the sale deed dated 30.10.1995 executed by Smt. Raj Dei in favour of Smt. Rumali Devi, Smt. Heera Devi and Narendra Bahadur Singh (opposite party No.6, 7 and 4) is intact till date and this sale deed was the basis of final order dated 27.01.2014 passed by opposite party No.2 in mutation case and settled proposition of law that the revenue authorities cannot adjudicate the issue/question/dispute of title/rights over the land/ property in issue and the ground to recall the final order dated 27.01.2014, which relates to title/rights over the land in issue.

12. Upon due consideration of aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no force in the submissions advanced by Shri Shailendra Singh, as for the purposes of causing interference by this Court in the impugned orders dated 31.01.2019 and 08.11.2019, he raised the issue related to rights/title of Smt. Raj Dei over the land transferred by her through sale deed dated 30.10.1995, the basis of final order dated 27.01.2014 passed in mutation case by opposite party No.2.

13. On the issue raised by the petitioners that the sale deed dated 30.10.1995 is void for the reason that the same was executed during operation of the interim order dated 09.01.1985, this Court finds it appropriate to indicate that it is apparent from para 6 of this judgment that no ground based upon the interim order dated 09.01.1985 has been taken in the instant petition and there is also no foundation in the petition regarding it and no document has been placed before this Court so as to deduce that the interim order dated 09.01.1985 was continuing on the date of execution of sale deed dated 30.10.1995.

14. In the case of Union of India Versus Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148, [LQ/SC/2012/578] the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

"77. This Court while dealing with an issue in Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi [(2011) 11 SCC 786 [LQ/SC/2011/133] : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 656 : AIR 2011 SC 1127 [LQ/SC/2011/133] ] , after placing reliance on a very large number of its earlier judgments including Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar [AIR 1953 SC 235 [LQ/SC/1953/35] ] , Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal [(2002) 2 SCC 256 [LQ/SC/2002/76] : AIR 2002 SC 665 [LQ/SC/2002/76] ] , Ishwar Dutt v. Collector (LA) [(2005) 7 SCC 190 [LQ/SC/2005/746] : AIR 2005 SC 3165 [LQ/SC/2005/746] ] and State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. [(2010) 4 SCC 518 [LQ/SC/2010/345] : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 207 : AIR 2010 SC 1299 [LQ/SC/2010/345] ] , held that relief not founded on the pleadings cannot be granted. A decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. No evidence is permissible to be taken on record in the absence of the pleadings in that respect. No party can 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. It was further held that where the evidence was not in the line of the pleadings, the said evidence cannot be looked into or relied upon."

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Akella Lalitha Versus Shri Konda Hanumantha Rao and another); (2022 SCC OnLine SC 928), observed as under:-

"16. Coming to address the second issue, while this Court is not apathetic to the predicament of the Respondent grandparents, it is a fact that absolutely no relief was ever sought by them for the change of surname of the child to that of first husband/son of respondents. It is settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice.

17. In the case of Trojan & Co. Ltd. v. Rm.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, this Court considered the issue as to whether relief not asked for by a party could be granted and that too without having proper pleadings. The Court held as under:—

“It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case.

18. In the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari & Anr. Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors' held:

"Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner.”

16. Taking note of the aforesaid as also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases indicated in paras 14 and 15 of this judgment, this Court is of the view that no relief could be granted to the petitioners on the basis of submissions advanced by Sri Shailendra Singh based upon interim order dated 09.01.1985.

17. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to cost.