A suit was filed by the appellant being Title Suit No. 13 of 1976 on 18.8.76 before the Assistant District Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur. The suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession by evicting the defendants from the land by demolishing the cattle shed and other structure, if any. There was also a prayer for compensation of Rs.2,000/- with a claim of future mesne profit. The land measuring 1 katha 19 lechas situated in the Town of Tezpur in Ward No.IX of Tezpur Municipality lying in Mahabhairab Mouza covered by Periodic Patta No. 18 under Dag No.968 (Ka) 968 (Kha), it was bounded as follows : North: Land of the plaintiff; South: Assam Valley Trading Co. (P) Ltd; East: Common Passage of the plaintiff, his, wife and minor children. West: Land of late Abdul Kader. 2. In paragraph 1 of the plaint, it has been stated as follows : (i) That the plaintiff is the owner of the land described the schedule below. 3. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it is stated that the defendant was permitted at his request to keep a few heads of cows in the suit land for his domestic purpose. The plaintiff gave his permission on the condition that defendant would remove his cattle and the temporary cattle shed whenever he would be asked to do so. The plaintiff did not charge any rent or money for it. 4. In paragraph 9 of the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff by his Advocate's letter dated 3rd March, 1976 revoked permission given to the defendant and asked him to remove the structures and vacate the suit land within 7 (seven) days of the receipt of the letter. 5. In paragraph 10 of the plaint it is stated that a reply was sent by the defendant wherein it was stated that the plaintiff gave him the land on tenancy on a monthly rental @ Rs.50/- (Rs fifty) only. 6. A written statement was filed and in paragraph 5 it is stated that the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land is denied. He also denied that he was occupying the land with the term of the plaintiff but he stated that for the use of the passage an amount of Rs.50/- was realised by the plaintiff from the defendant. He also denied that he was occupying the land with the term of the plaintiff but he stated that for the use of the passage an amount of Rs.50/- was realised by the plaintiff from the defendant. In paragraph 18 of be written statement, he admits the receipt of the notice but he says that notice does not relate to the suit land and he gave different description of the land which does not tally with the schedule of the land mentioned above. 7. As many as 9 issues were framed in the suit. They are : (i) Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action for the suit ? (ii) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and has got right to sue? (iv) Whether defendant resides in the house belonging to Sri Rajib Kutari? (v) Whether the plaintiff permitted the defendant to use the suit land for his cowshed temporarily with condition to remove the same upon demand by the plaintiff. (vi) Whether the defendant has been in occupation of the suit land peacefully without interruption and continuous since the year 1963 treating the land as his own? (vii) Whether the plaintiff collected rent for allowing entrance to the suit land @ Rs.50/- per month from his residence after he came to occupy the residential house? (viii) Whether defendant is entitled to compensatory cost under section 35A CPC ? (ix) To what reliefs the parties are entitled ? 8. Following are the witnesses : (i) PW 1 Rajendra Singh Kothari (plaintiff) (ii) PW 2 Nripendra Nath Dey. He exhibited Ext 8, the reply sent to the notice dated 3.3.76 by his father Bhupendra Chandra Dey. (iii) PW 3 Tudeswar Mahato. He is an employee of the Tezpur Municipal Board. He exhibited Ext 11 the petition submitted by the defendant before the Tezpur Municipal Board. (iv) PW 4 is Prem Madhab Sarma, he is an employee of the SDM (Executive). He exhibited Ext 14 an application under section 107 filed by the defendant before the Court. (v) PW 5 is Dinesh Chandra Goswami. He exhibited Ext 11 the petition submitted by the defendant before the Tezpur Municipal Board. (iv) PW 4 is Prem Madhab Sarma, he is an employee of the SDM (Executive). He exhibited Ext 14 an application under section 107 filed by the defendant before the Court. (v) PW 5 is Dinesh Chandra Goswami. He is an employee of the office of the Sub Registrar of Tezpur and he brought the book to prove Ext 1 the certified copy of the Deed of Sale by Abdul Kader in favour of the plaintiff and he further deposed that this Ext 1 was copied at page 191 and 192 of the Book. (vi) PW 6 is Prabhat Chandra Dey. (vii) PW 7 is Probhat Bhattacharjee. He is a Health Officer of the Tezpur and he deposed with regard to the Holding No. in the name of the plaintiff and exhibited other documents. 9. Further certain witnesses were examined. On behalf of the defendant 9 witnesses were examined including defendant No.3 and hand writing expert. Following are the documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff: (i) Ext 1 Registered Sale Deed. (ii) Ext 2 a copy of the Jamabandi (iii) Ext 3 to 3 (3) are revenue paying receipts. (iv) Ext 4 a copy of the notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant to vacate the land. (v) Ext 6 is another notice. (vi) Ext 8 is reply to the notice dated 3.3.76. (vii) Ext 10 is another reply to the notice. (viii) Ext 12 another copy of the letter by the defendant. (ix) Ext 14 another document and other documents are not relevant. 10. As many as 29 documents were exhibited on behalf of defendant and out of it Exts 22 to 28 are the copy of the Chitha and Jamabandi. On behalf of the defendants documents exhibited from Ext 'Ka' to Ext 'Unga'. 11. The learned Munsiff by judgment dated 15th June, 1987 dismissed the suit. The learned Munsiff first took up the issue No.3 for discussion. On behalf of the defendants documents exhibited from Ext 'Ka' to Ext 'Unga'. 11. The learned Munsiff by judgment dated 15th June, 1987 dismissed the suit. The learned Munsiff first took up the issue No.3 for discussion. The learned Munsiff in deciding the issue No.3 did not place any reliance on Ext No.l, the certified copy of the sale deed which was proved from the book of the Sub-Registrar on the ground that the existence of such a deed was not pleaded in the plaint and he further came to the finding that the existence of such a deed was brought by surprise at the trial stage and he came to the finding that the title of the plaintiff over the land described in the plaint of the Schedule was not established. Thereafter he took up issue Nos 5 and 7 for discussion and decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiffs. So, it was found by the trial Court that the plaintiff permitted the defendant to use his suit land for his cowshed temporarily with a condition to remove the same upon demand made by the plaintiff and it was further found that the plaintiff collected rent for allowing entry to the said-land @ Rs.50/- for occupying land for residential house. Issue No.6 is with regard to the adverse possession. In view of the decision in issue No.5 that issue was rightly not decided but the learned Munsiff made a remark that the suit was not filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession. Issue No.8 is with regard to the compensation and regarding the relief clause, he came to the finding (on discussion of the evidence, issue Nos 3 and 5) that the plaintiff failed to prove his title over the suit land. Regarding findings on title it has been already indicated that the title was found against the plaintiff but curiously enough though a the learned Munsiff decided issue No .5 against the defendant and having decided that issue against the defendant it cannot be held that the suit can be dismissed on the basis of the finding in issue No.5. 12. Thereafter an appeal was filed being Title Appeal No.3 of 1987 before the learned District Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur by the plaintiff. 12. Thereafter an appeal was filed being Title Appeal No.3 of 1987 before the learned District Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur by the plaintiff. The learned District Judge took up issue Nos 1 and 2 for discussion and he came to the finding with regard to the sale deed as follows : “I am therefore constrained to hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to adduce any evidence in the case to prove his ownership over the suit land by right of purchase on the basis of a sale deed and no amount of evidence led by the plaintiff in this regard can be looked into in this appeal. I therefore find it to be a fit case to ignore the evidence inducted by the plaintiff under objection in the case to prove his ownership over the suit land.” 13. Having held so he found that the plaintiff/appellant's title over the suit land not proved. He further found that there is no cause of action for the suit and that the suit is not maintainable in the present form. Accordingly he decided the issue Nos 1, 2 and 3 against the appellant, but the other issues were decided in d favour of the appellant meaning thereby that it was found that the defendant was in permissive occupation of the land and even it was found by that the learned Judge that there was admission with regard to this in various Exts. But as issue Nos 1,2 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff/appellant, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned Munsiff was upheld. Hence, this second appeal. 14. It may be stated herein that against the finding of the learned District Judge in issue Nos 5 and 7 a cross objection has also been filed and this has been admitted. Both the cross-objection and appeal are taken up for hearing together. 15. I have heard Sri NM Lahiri, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. TC Khetri, learned Advocate for the respondents. 16. Following are the substantial questions of law : (i) That in the plaint there was no prayer for declaration of title. Both the cross-objection and appeal are taken up for hearing together. 15. I have heard Sri NM Lahiri, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. TC Khetri, learned Advocate for the respondents. 16. Following are the substantial questions of law : (i) That in the plaint there was no prayer for declaration of title. The whole suit was on the basis of permissive occupation of the defendant and in that view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the Courts below regarding title are absolutely irrelevant, (ii) That the plaintiff claimed ownership and title of the suit land specifically in the plaint and he led evidence to the effect and the learned Courts below erred in law in ignoring that evidence holding that it is beyond the pleading. 17. The appellate Court having found the defendant to be in permissive occupation of the suit land, the learned appellate Court erred in law in not decreeing the suit for eviction. That the pleading should receive liberal construction to advance justice and it should not be construed in a manner to defeat the justice. Let us take up the question of interpreting the pleading first. 18. The law regarding the interpretation or construction of pleading is that the pleading should not be construed very strictly and the Court must look to the essential justice of the case, without considering whether matters or form have been strictly attended to. In Moores Indian Appeals Vol 2 1837-41 344 (Ghirdharee Singh vs. Kookahul Singh & others), the Judicial Committee has pointed out that the Court should look to the essential justice of the case without considering whether matters or form have strictly few attended to. 19. To the same effect is the decision in Moores Indian Appeals Vol 11 1866-7 468 (Mohummud Zahoor Ali Khan vs. Mussumat Thakooranee Rutta Koer & others) wherein it has been pointed out as follows : “Although the Judicial Committee is disposed to give a liberal construction to pleadings in Indian Courts, so as to allow every question to be raised and discussed in the suit, yet a plaintiff cannot be entitled to rely upon facts and documents neither stated or referred to in the pleadings.” 20. In AIR 1923 PC 6 (The Secretary of State vs. Laxmi Bai & another)wherein the Privy Council pointed out as follows : “It is clear what is meant by 'Raitava rights', but the statement sufficiently discloses that they are rights of occupancy only and not of ownership, and a claim of this kind was strenuously maintained in the lower Court with regard to the occupation of lands which were unoccupied at the date of the original grant. This latter claim has now been abandoned. In no part of the plaint is it possible to find a claim that the Saranjam grant was a grant of the royal share of the revenue only. It appears, however, that this point was argued, and it has not been the practice of their Lordships to construe the pleadings too strictly, or to exclude a plea, which was not embodied in the plaint, from being made an issue in the case. The fact, however, that it did not occur to the plaintiff's advisers to propound this contention on the evidence which he adduced has a bearing on the question as to the proper inference to be drawn in fact from that evidence.” 21. In AIR 1976 SC 461 (Madan Gopal Kanodia vs. Mamraj Maniram & others) the Supreme Court pointed out in paragraph 26 as follows : “It is well settled that pleadings are loosely drafted in the Courts and the Courts should not scrutinise the pleadings with such meticulous care so as to result in genuine claims being defeated on trivial grounds.” 22. In the same volume at page 744 (Udhav Singh vs. Madhav Rao Scindia) the Supreme Court pointed out how a pleading is to be construed and in paragraph 30 it has been pointed out as follows : “A pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context, in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be construed as it stands without addition or substraction of words, or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered, primarily, from the tenor and terms of his pleading taken as a whole.” 23. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be construed as it stands without addition or substraction of words, or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered, primarily, from the tenor and terms of his pleading taken as a whole.” 23. The title was pleaded and issue also was framed being issue No.3, and not to allow a party to adduce evidence on it or to ignore that evidence is an erroneous approach. How a person acquires title is a question to be decided on evidence. No doubt pleading could have been more specific, but that is no ground to deny the relief as has been done. Pleadings have to be interpreted not with hormalistic rigour but with latitude of awareness of low legal literacy of poor people, (see AIR 1977 SC 1158 Manjushree vs. BL Gupta). It is not justice if the Court adopts an approach to find fault in all trivial matters. Procedural law should not be placed at such a high pedestal to deny justice in an appropriate case. Courts are respected not for its technical approach but for its bold attempt to deliver justice being not bogged down by technicalities. Justice is the virtue by which we give to every man what is his dues opposed to injury or wrong. It is an action rendering what is right and equitable towards one who has suffered a wrong. No doubt there is a system to deliver it and we must adhere to it, but always the goal is justice. 24. This being the position, the finding of both the Courts below that the title was not pleaded and as such the evidence cannot be lead on that count is an erroneous finding and that requires to be set aside which I hereby do. The title was established on the basis of Ext 1, the sale deed. Another aspect of the matter is that in the suit itself there was no claim for declaration of title. The whole claim was based on the claim of permissive occupation of the defendant on the basis of title of plaintiff and the appellate Court having found that the defendant was permissive occupier, it was the bounden duty of the appellate Court to allow the appeal and decree the suit but that was not done. The whole claim was based on the claim of permissive occupation of the defendant on the basis of title of plaintiff and the appellate Court having found that the defendant was permissive occupier, it was the bounden duty of the appellate Court to allow the appeal and decree the suit but that was not done. Regarding the cross objection filed by the respondents, I do not find any merit in the same as the both the Courts on consideration of the materials on record came to the finding that the defendant is a permissive occupier of the land and that finds support in the admission made by the defendant in Exts 10,14 and 22 to which reference has been made by the appellate Court. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost all throughout.