Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under Section 96, CPC by the defendants against the judgment and decree by which the plaintiffs suit for declaration that the registered sale-deed dated 10-3-2000 (Ex. P-9) executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 3 is void and not binding on the plaintiffs has been decreed. The defendant No. 3 has been directed to deliver possession of the house in dispute to the plaintiffs. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that Bhagwandas Asati owned and possessed agricultural lands and houses in 3 Villages Nirandpur, Sarra and Maharajpur. He had 3 sons Kunjbihari, Shyambihari and Awadhbihari. The agricultural lands were divided amongst his sons by a registered partition deed in the year 1969. The houses in these villages were not the subject matter of partition in the year 1969. Kunjbihari died and the plaintiff are his legal representatives. Awadhbihari is defendant No. 1 and Anurag Asati (defendant No. 2) is his son. Anurag Asati executed a registered sale-deed mentioned above in favour of defendant No. 3 Smt. Renuka Bai in respect of the house in Village Nirandpur. She has taken possession of this house. ( 3. ) THE plaintiffs case is that there was an oral partition in respect of the house. It was decided that Kunjbihari had largest acreage of land in village Nirandpur and, therefore, house situated in that village was allotted to him. The other two brothers had most of the lands in Villages Sarra and maharajpur and, therefore, houses in those villages were given to them. The defendant No. 3 has taken possession of the house in Village Nirandpur in april, 2000. ( 4. ) THE defendant No. 2 did not specifically plead how he became the owner of house in Village Nirandpur which could enable him to sell it to the defendant No. 3. He did not set up the plea that this house was bequeathed to him by Bhagwandas. ( 5. ) THE Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence adduced by both the sides held that there was an oral partition in which the house in dispute was allotted to Kunjbihari and, therefore, after his death the plaintiffs who are his heirs became owners of that house. ( 5. ) THE Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence adduced by both the sides held that there was an oral partition in which the house in dispute was allotted to Kunjbihari and, therefore, after his death the plaintiffs who are his heirs became owners of that house. It has been held that the sale-deed executed by Anurag Asati in favour of defendant No. 3 Smt. Renuka Bai is ineffective and it is not binding on the plaintiffs. ( 6. ) IN this appeal it has been argued that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the oral partition was not proved. ( 7. ) THE evidence on record has been scrutinised by this Court. Awadhbihari (D. W. 1) has deposed that there was some will executed by his father Bhagwandas in favour of Anurag Asati. As already stated there was no pleading by the defendants that Bhagwandas had executed any Will in favour of Anurag Asati. Awadhbihari (D. W. 1) in his cross-examination in Para 4 has admitted that Kunjbihari was given about 80 acres of land in Village Nirandpur and he himself was given most of the lands in Village Sarra. He has further admitted that his third brother Shyambihari was given lands mainly in Village maharajpur. He has further clearly admitted that he has got the house of village Sarra and Shyambihari has got the house of Village Maharajpur. Therefore, greater probability is that the house in Village Nirandpur was given in the partition to Kunjbihari or his heirs. The finding of the Trial Court on this point is correct. It is well settled that the decision in a civil suit depends on preponderance of probability and admission made by the opposite party is the best evidence on which other party can rely upon. ( 8. ) ANURAG Asati (D. W. 2) has deposed that his grand father bhagwandas had given him the house in dispute by a Will. No such Will has been produced in the Court. It has not been proved. There is no pleading in the written statement that Bhagwandas had executed any Will in respect of his house in favour of Anurag Asati (D. W. 2 ). It is well settled : "no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward". It has not been proved. There is no pleading in the written statement that Bhagwandas had executed any Will in respect of his house in favour of Anurag Asati (D. W. 2 ). It is well settled : "no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward". The decision in a civil suit can not be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be proved. It is the requirement of Order 6 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code that material facts must be pleaded in a concise form. Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable Courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular cause of action must take. (Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Moji, AIR 1978 SC 484 ). In the present case there was no pleading by the defendants that Bhagwandas had bequeathed the house in dispute to Anurag Asati and, therefore, the case of the defendants which has been developed at the evidence stage can not be accepted. Even otherwise the Will has not been produced nor it has been proved. The decree passed by the Trial Court is unassailable. ( 9. ) THE appeal is dismissed. First Appeal dismissed.