LEGAL PRINCIPLE: PLEADINGS – Departure from Pleadings – Prohibition Against Departure from Pleaded Case in Land Disputes
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A plaintiff who pleads exclusive ownership and possession of family land as against the family title cannot succeed based on mere possession against a defendant claiming through the family if the plaintiff fails to prove the pleaded partition of family land; such reliance would constitute an impermissible departure from pleadings.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"A plaintiff who founds his claim on exclusive ownership and possession of a portion of family land, as against the title of the whole family, must prove that the family land has been partitioned. If he fails to prove partition, he cannot succeed on the basis of mere possession against a defendant who claims through the family, as this would amount to a departure from his pleaded case."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This principle enforces the fundamental rule that parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot succeed on unpleaded bases. Where a plaintiff claims individual exclusive ownership carved out from family land, the legal foundation must be partition—a formal division of family property. If partition is pleaded but not proved, the plaintiff cannot fall back on an alternative theory of possessory title, as this represents a different cause of action requiring different pleadings and proof. The prohibition prevents surprise and prejudice to defendants who defend against the pleaded case and ensures orderly litigation. In land disputes involving family property, the distinction between claiming as an individual owner (requiring proof of partition) and claiming as a family member (requiring different proof) is fundamental and parties must be held to their chosen theory.