This second appeal is by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the suit pray­ing for a declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the suit property and also for khas possession by holding that the defendants are not tenants. 2. According (o plaintiff he is the owner of the suit land and as he was in need of money he borrowed a sum of Rs. 400/-from the defendants by executing a katcha deed dated 13.1.55 mortgaging the suit land, Thereafter the amount was repaid after obtaining proper receipt. It has been alleged that taking advantage of the katcha deed defendant No. 2 secretly got his name recorded as a tenant over the plaintiff's land and refused to give possession of the land. It has been specifically asserted that the defendants No. 1 and 2 were never tenant of the plaintiff. Reference has also been made to Misc. Case No. 1 of 1961 before the Assistant Settlement Officer in which case the prayer of the defendant No. 1 for mutation on the basis of purchase was rejected. The Settlement Officer also rejected the appeal and upheld the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Plaintiff has further alleged that defendants illegally kept possession of the laud and hence the present suit has been filed. 3. In the written statement it is not disputed that the plaintiff was the owner of the land, but it has been alleged that defendants were enjoving possession of the land as a raiyat on payment of rent in 1968-69 and in 1968-69 they got rayati khatian and thereafter also a pacca khatian. It has been denied that the katcha deed was a mortgage deed and according to defendants it was a sale. Defendants have further alleged that by virtue of the said sale deed they are in possession of the land as owner. The plea of adverse possession has also been taken. Both the Courts below decided the dispute against the present plaintiff/appellant. It may be stated that due to death of original plaintiff and the main defendant their legal heirs have been substituted. 4. Mr. The plea of adverse possession has also been taken. Both the Courts below decided the dispute against the present plaintiff/appellant. It may be stated that due to death of original plaintiff and the main defendant their legal heirs have been substituted. 4. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the impugned judgment arid decree of the learned lower appellate Court are not tenable in law, inasmuch as, though Court found that the plaintiff has got right, title and ownership over the land but held that the defendants could not be evicted as they were protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, such a plea was, however, never taken in the written statement. According to Mr. Choudburv, the Court cannot make out a new case not pleaded. In this connection Mr. Choudhury has placed reliance on the decision of he Privy Council and the Apex Court. 5. In Siddik Mohamed Shah vs. Mt. Saran & others, AIR 1930 PC 57 (1) it was held that ‘no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward.' 6. In Nirod Baran Banerjee vs. Dy. Commissioner of Hazanhagh, (1980) 3 SCC 5 in para 6 it wis held that ’it is well settled that no evidence can be looked into by the Court for which there was no foundation in the pleadings.' 7. In Siddu Venkappa Debadiga vs. Smt. Rangu S. Debadiga & others, AIR 1977 SC 890 it was held that it is well settled having been laid down by the Apex Court in Trojan and Co. Ltd. vs. Nagappa Chettiar, 1953 SCR 789 ( AIR 1953 SC 235 ) and Raruha Singh vs. Achal Singh, AIR 1961 SC 1097 that a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the plea of the parties and that it is the case pleaded which has to be found. 8. Situated thus, the law is that no amount of evidence can be looked into if the fact are not pleaded by the parties in their pleadings; the Court cannot make out a new case beyond the pleadings and further no evidence can be looked into by the Court for which there is no foundation in the pleadings. 9. 8. Situated thus, the law is that no amount of evidence can be looked into if the fact are not pleaded by the parties in their pleadings; the Court cannot make out a new case beyond the pleadings and further no evidence can be looked into by the Court for which there is no foundation in the pleadings. 9. Coming to the case in hand the learned lower appellate Court clearly held that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest, but the defendants are protected under the proviso of section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, inasmuch as, they were in possession of the land. This was not the case of the defendants and as stated above, defendants specifically pleaded that they acquired right, title and interest over the land by the right of purchase by the katcha deed Ext. 'Ka'. I, therefore, hold that the finding of the learned lower appellate Court that defendants are protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is erroneous and is liable to be set aside which I hereby do. 10. Regarding the purchase or mortgage by virtue of Ext 'Ka' it has been urged by Mr. Choudhury that the Ext 'Ka' being an unregistered document cannot be accepted as evidence except for collateral purpose as the document is not registered. It may be stated that the value of the land is more than 100 rupees, 11. Reading section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and sections 17 and 49 of Registration Act, I find considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and I hold that placing reliance on this piece of document Ext. 'Ka' is absolutely illegal. It is made clear that this document as urged by Mr. Choudhury can however, be used for collateral purposes. 12. Mr. Sarma, leaned counsel for the respondent has urged only one point viz defendants cannot be evicted as they are tenants. In this connection learned counsel has placed reliance in Chapter IX of 'he Assam Temporarily Settled Areas Tenancy Act, 1971. In reply Mr. Chaudhury has urged that there is a clear finding of the learned lower appellate Court in para 11 of the judgment that defendant did not acquire any tenancy right in respect of the suit land. Mr. In this connection learned counsel has placed reliance in Chapter IX of 'he Assam Temporarily Settled Areas Tenancy Act, 1971. In reply Mr. Chaudhury has urged that there is a clear finding of the learned lower appellate Court in para 11 of the judgment that defendant did not acquire any tenancy right in respect of the suit land. Mr. Sarma his placed reliance on the finding of the learned trial Court while considering issue No, 9. 13. I have perused the said finding of the learned trial Court and find that the learned trial Court has recorded that the defendants were occupying the land as tenant of the plaintiff. But the Court has also taken note of the said fact that the revenue authority refused to record the names of the defendant as tenant under the provisions of the said Act. 14. Be that as it may, the judgment of the learned trial Court has merged with the appellate Court's judgment and in para 11 of the appellate judgment ' there is a clear finding that the plaintiff never agreed to entertain the defen­dants as tenant and that apart the revenue authority also did not record the names of the defendants as tenant. In this connection I may refer to section 58 of the Assam Temporarily Settled Areas Tenancy Act. I may also add that against the finding of the learned lower appellate Court no cross-objection has been filed by the defendants. 5. As the learned Court below held that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the land and in view of my finding that the defendants cannot get protection under section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, I hold that the suit is liable to be decreed. Accordingly the suit is decreed by declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land and also for recovery of khas possession. Appeal is allowed and the parties to bear their own cost for this appeal.