Patel Kantilal Parshottamdas (D) & Ors. v. Jitendrakumar Nanjibhai Mistry (D) Th. Lrs & Ors.
Background
A lessee ("Kanti"), who held a 99-year lease over a plot in Ahmedabad with an option to purchase, agreed in 1974 to sell the property to a buyer ("Jitender") for Rs. 1,85,001, but the sale deed was never executed despite extensions. Kanti sued to cancel the agreement and recover possession, while Jitender separately sued for specific performance; the trial court dismissed Jitender's suit as time-barred and decreed in Kanti's favour. On appeal, the High Court upheld dismissal of Jitender's specific-performance suit but set aside the decree in Kanti's favour and remanded that suit to the trial court on a new ground, that the sale agreement was a "contingent contract" since Kanti was only a lessee, not the owner, allowing fresh pleadings and evidence.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by remanding Kanti's suit on an entirely new legal theory (that the agreement was a "contingent contract") that had never been pleaded or argued by either side, and by effectively permitting a pleading amendment that neither party had sought. Since Jitender's suit for specific performance already stood finally dismissed (unchallenged), the first relief sought by Kanti, a declaration that the agreement was void, was already achieved, leaving only the question of possession. The Court set aside the High Court's remand-for-fresh-trial order but sent the narrower, specific question of possession back to the High Court itself for it to decide in Jitender's pending appeal, since that issue had never actually been addressed on its merits.
Lesson Learnt
An appellate court cannot set aside a decree and order a retrial based on a legal theory that was never pleaded or argued by either party in the case: courts must decide cases on the grounds actually raised, not reinvent a party's case for them.