JUDGMENT : This is a second appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code by defendants No. 2 to 4. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order, dated 5-07-1985 at the time of the admission of this appeal :- "1. Whether there is no legal basis for holding that the appellants are liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff? 2. Whether the lower Court has erred in holding that oral evidence in variance with the terms of Exhibits D-1 and D-2 was admissible and it was not barred by sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act? 3. Whether the Court below has erred in making out for the plaintiff the case that a sum of Rs. 4,500/- was kept with the appellants to discharge the Bank's dues, when no such case was to be found in the pleadings ? 4. Whether the lower Court has committed an error in ignoring the variance between the case as pleaded in the plaint and the one sought to be made out in evidence? 5. Whether, the findings of the lower Court are vitiated by ignoring the legal presumption arising from the Registrar's endorsements regarding payment and receipt of consideration made on sale deed executed in favour of the appellants and burden of proof has wrongly been thrown upon the appellants?" 2. The facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred above are that defendant No. 1 - Bapu Lal was Bhumiswami of Khasra numbers 335, 337, 326/1 and 326/2 of Village Makrawan. He sold Khasra number 326/2 by registered sale deed 14-5-1970 to plaintiff Sajjan Singh. He also sold Khasra number 326/1 to him by registered sale deed dated 6-06-1972. Defendant No. 1 Bapu Lal further sold Khasra numbers 335 and 337 to the respondents No. 2 to 4 by registered sale deed, dated 14-05-1974 for Rs. 16,500/-. Defendant No. 1 Bapu Lal had taken a loan from Mandsour District Co-operative Bank Limited before the sale of these lands to the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 2 to 4. The Bank proceeded to auction Khasra number 326/1 and 326/2 on 7-04-1975 to recover its loan. In order to save these lands from being auctioned the plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs. 2,370/- with the bank on 1-05-1975 and therefore, these lands could not be auctioned. 3. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The Bank proceeded to auction Khasra number 326/1 and 326/2 on 7-04-1975 to recover its loan. In order to save these lands from being auctioned the plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs. 2,370/- with the bank on 1-05-1975 and therefore, these lands could not be auctioned. 3. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had agreed in writing to pay the amount of the loan from the consideration amount of Rs. 16,500/- for which they had purchased the lands bearing Khasra numbers 335 and 337. Therefore, according to plaintiff, he is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 2,370/- from defendants. 4. The defendant No. 1 filed a cryptic written statement and admitted all the allegations of the plaintiff. There is, however, no pleading by defendant No. 1 Bapu Lal that the defendant numbers 2 to 4 had kept any amount out of the sale consideration of Rs. 16,500/- with them for repayment of the loan. The defendant numbers 2 and 3 in their written statement pleaded that they had purchased Khasra numbers 335 and 337 without any encumbrances. According to them the defendant No. 1 had specifically written in the agreement, dated 18-04-1974 that the loan of the Bank, if any, would be paid by him. According to defendants number 2 and 3 they had purchased Khasra numbers 335 and 337 after full payment of Rs. 16,500/- to the defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 4 was minor and he has filed a formal written statement. 5. The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record held that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are liable to repay the amount of Rs. 2,370/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as this amount has been deposited by the plaintiff in the Bank to save his lands from being auctioned. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendants number 2 to 4. 6. In this appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the appellants that they are not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 2,370/- to the plaintiff either under any agreement or as per requirement of any law and therefore, the decree passed against them should be set aside. It is submitted that the finding of the two Courts below on the point that the respondent Nos. 2,370/- to the plaintiff either under any agreement or as per requirement of any law and therefore, the decree passed against them should be set aside. It is submitted that the finding of the two Courts below on the point that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had retained an amount of Rs. 4,500/- out of the sale consideration of Rs. 16,500/- for payment of the loan of defendant No. 1-Bapu Lal is outside the pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and it is perverse. It is further submitted that such a perverse finding is not binding in second appeal. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below cannot be disturbed by this Court in second appeal. 7. The pleadings and the evidence on record have been scanned by this Court, In the plaint, there is no specific plea by the plaintiff that the amount of Rs. 4,500/- out of the sale consideration of Rs. 16,500/- was not paid to defendant No. 1- Bapu Lal. In para 8 it has been stated that there was an agreement in writing that the defendant No.2 would pay the loan of the Bank. As a matter of fact, such a pleading should have been taken by defendant No. 1 Bapu Lal in his written statement. As already stated, this written statement simply admits all the allegations of the plaintiff and it does not raise the plea that any amount out of the sale consideration of Rs. 16,500/- was retained by the defendants No. 2 to 4 for repayment of the loan taken by the defendant No. 1 from the Bank. Therefore, it is difficult to comprehend how the two Courts below could arrive at a conclusion that an amount of Rs. 4,500/- was retained out of the sale consideration of Rs. 16,500/- by the defendant Nos. 2 to 4. In the absence of pleadings, no evidence could be adduced on this point and there could not be any factual finding on that aspect. 8. As mentioned above, the plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant number 2 had agreed in writing that he would repay the amount of loan due to the Bank from defendant number 1 - Bapu Lal. The agreement is exhibit D-1. 8. As mentioned above, the plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant number 2 had agreed in writing that he would repay the amount of loan due to the Bank from defendant number 1 - Bapu Lal. The agreement is exhibit D-1. In this agreement, there is no mention that any loan was taken by defendant number 1 - Bapu Lal from the Bank. Similarly, in the registered sale deed dated 14-5-1974 (Exhibit D-2) executed by defendant number 1 - Bapu Lal in favour of defendants numbers 3 and 4, there is no mention that any amount out of the sale consideration of Rs. 16,500/- has been retained by the defendant No. 2 for repayment of the loan of defendant No. 1. In the sale deed (exhibit D-2), it is mentioned that an amount of Rs. 11,150/- has been received by the vendor before the Sub Registrar and an amount of Rs. 5,350/- prior to the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, the findings of the two Courts that an amount of Rs. 4,500/- was retained by the defendants No. 2 to 4 out of the sale consideration is perverse. As stated supra, it is beyond the scope of the pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 Bapu Lal. There could not be a finding in the absence of pleadings on this point. 9. As mentioned above, the lands which were being put to auction by the Bank were khasra numbers 326/1 and 326/2 which were sold by defendant No. 1 - Bapu Lal to the plaintiff. The plaintiff deposited the amount of Rs. 2,370/- to save these lands from being auctioned for recovery of the loan from defendant No. 1 - Bapu Lal. Therefore, the plaintiff was legally entitled to recover this amount of Rs. 2,370/- from defendant No. 1 - Bapu Lal. But, the trial Court has not granted any decree against respondent No. 1 - Bapu Lal. The decree has been passed against defendants No. 2 to 4 who were purchasers of Khasara Nos. 335 and 337. These lands were not put to auction by the Bank. The plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 2,370/- from the defendant Nos.2 to 4. 10. Now, the questions numbers 1 to 5 framed by this Court and detailed above should be answered. 335 and 337. These lands were not put to auction by the Bank. The plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 2,370/- from the defendant Nos.2 to 4. 10. Now, the questions numbers 1 to 5 framed by this Court and detailed above should be answered. On question No. 1, this Court is of the opinion that there was no legal basis for holding the appellants are liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff. So far as question number 2 is concerned, the trial Court and the first appellate Court have wrongly admitted the evidence in the absence of the pleadings by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act do not debar the plaintiff or defendant No. 1 from adducing evidence on this point, but such evidence could not be adduced in the absence of and contrary to the pleadings. The Courts below have erred in making out a case for the plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 4,500/- was kept by the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 to discharge the loan of the Bank. On question No. 4, the view of this Court is that the Courts below have committed an error in ignoring the variance between the case as pleaded in the plaint and the one sought to be made in evidence. The answer to the question No. 5 is also in the affirmative. 11. In view of the above discussion, this second appeal of the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the two Courts below are set aside and the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 2,370/- from the defendants No. 2 to 4 is dismissed. Respondent No. 1 will pay the costs of the appellant in all the three courts. Counsel fee as certified.