JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– Mookberjee, J.: This first appeal is directed against judgment and decree of the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, dated 29th June, 1994, passed in Title suit No. 1038 of 1977, which had been decreed by the learned Judge. The defendant in the suit is appellant before this Court. 2. The said suit was instituted, inter alia, on the allegation that the defendant trespassed into the disputed suit property by breaking open the padlock and by closing the passage by a pucca wall inside the occupied room, which was used by a tenant to go to his shop within the same compound, and opened a gate for his own egress and ingress. The plaintiff prayed for reliefs, inter alia, by way of declaration that the defendant acquired no right, title and interest to occupy the disputed portion of the suit premises; that document, if there was any, was illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff and also for recovery of possession and permanent injunction. 3. On behalf of the defendant, a monthly tenancy under plaintiff's adoptive mother had been pleaded at a rental of Rs. 100/-, according to English Calendar and the date of origin of such tenancy was stated to be 1st of December, 1970, creation of such tenancy was pleaded also to be within the knowledge of the present plaintiff. 4. In support of the appeal, Mr. Roy Chowdbury has substantially contended that his client claimed a tenancy and such tenancy has been amply proved by the rent receipts Exhibits 'A' series and the agreement between his client and Ram Moni (Exhibit 'C'). Interestingly, according to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, no specific case of fraud has been pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff, challenging the genuineness of the documents relied on by his client, and mere statement in the plaint that certain signed blank papers had been left with the defendant with a prayer as stated hereinbefore could not be read as to mean that such papers had been converted into rent receipts or the agreement. 5. Mr. Arun Prakash Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the respondent, has contended that the agreement does not create a tenancy, particularly, when the existence of such agreement had not been pleaded in the written statement; secondly, according to Mr. 5. Mr. Arun Prakash Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the respondent, has contended that the agreement does not create a tenancy, particularly, when the existence of such agreement had not been pleaded in the written statement; secondly, according to Mr. Chatterjee, merely the signatures on the rent receipts having been proved the contents are not admissible in evidence. The agreement in particular not having been proved to have been explained to Ram Moni, who was an illiterate lady, should not be accepted in evidence as a genuine document. 6. The learned Judge by the impugned judgment, as stated above, decreed the suit and, in so decreeing, found, inter alia, the following :–– (i) The signature on the agreement was that of Gangadhar Haldar, the plaintiff. The non-disclosure of the evidence either in the affidavit of documents or written statement coupled with non-examination of persons connected with the execution of agreement as also absence of any material to show that the contents of the same were made known to Ram Moni rendered the agreement a fictitious and fraudulent document and as such mere existence of the signature of Gangadhar could not have any bearing on the merits of defendant case of tenancy; secondly, with regard to the rent receipts the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the rent receipts also were not genuine and had been manufactured by the defendant by abusing faith reposed in him by the plaintiff Gangadhar Haldar. The reasons given in support of such conclusions appeared to be that tenancy started from 12th of December, 1970, and hence the entire rent for the month of December was not required to be paid; that Ram Moni had gone to her native village after the Sradh ceremony of her husband and direct payment of rent to her was not believable when with regard to the other tenants, Anil Gupta had been collecting rent and lastly the rent receipts were not formally proved. (ii) Relying upon the Commissioner's report the learned Trial Judge found as a fact that the defendant abused confidence and forcefully took possession not only of the suit property but also of the iron safe and other articles. (iii) The defence case having failed the plaintiff's case of the defendant being a rank trespasser stood satisfactorily proved. 7. (ii) Relying upon the Commissioner's report the learned Trial Judge found as a fact that the defendant abused confidence and forcefully took possession not only of the suit property but also of the iron safe and other articles. (iii) The defence case having failed the plaintiff's case of the defendant being a rank trespasser stood satisfactorily proved. 7. Upon consideration of the rival submissions it appears to us that the propriety of the decision of the learned Trial Judge hinges on our conclusion about the status of the defendant. The defendant has claimed a tenancy and in support thereof rent receipts have been produced, admitted signatures whereon, were of Gangadhar Haldar and thumb impressions of Ram Moni could not be shown to be not genuine, the only ground on which such receipts have been discarded by the learned Trial Judge is a finding of fraud by conversion of blank papers into rent receipts through perpetration of fraud in that way was never pleaded in the plaint. It is well settled that a case which has not been pleaded in the plaint cannot be made out by evidence. It is also well settled that signatures to the documents having been admitted or proved the contents thereof automatically go into evidence, when the documents were admitted into evidence without objection. (See order No. 53 dated 5.9.1992) Vide (1) AIR 1972 SC 608 , P. C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal. The same reasonings apply to the agreement in question. If the existence and genuineness of the rent receipts cannot be doubted then the existence of the agreement also has to be accepted because of its consistency in facts. According to our view, therefore, the net effect of the above renders the case of tenancy as pleaded by the defendant credible and the case of the plaintiff of the defendant being trespasser cannot but has to be rejected. We do not agree with the reasonings of the learned Trial Judge because his entire approach was vitiated by non-consideration of absence of specific plea of fraud and surmises and presumption. The appeal is, in the result, allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge are set aside and the suit is dismissed. In the facts of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Panigrahi, J.: I agree.