Judgment : Plaintiffs in a suit for redemption are the appellants. The decree granted in their favour by the trial court was set aside and reversed by the lower appellate court, by which, the suit was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have come up with this appeal. 2. Short facts involved in the case can be summed up thus: Suit property having an extent of 25.5 cents belonged to one late Kesavan Nadar, and he had mortgaged the property in favour of the defendant, who is the wife of his elder brother, namely Govindan Nadar, under Ext.A1 deed. The defendant continues in possession as a mortgagee under the above deed, is not in dispute. Kesavan Nadar is no more. The plaintiffs claiming as the daughter and wife of Kesavan Nadar laid the suit. The right of the plaintiffs to redeem the property from the defendant was challenged by the mortgagee disputing their status as legal heirs of late Kesavan Nadar. Admittedly, the 2nd plaintiff was the wife of another elder brother of late Kesavan Nadar, namely, Madhavan Nadar. After the death of Madhavan Nadar, his younger brother Kesavan Nadar married the 2ndplaintiff, and out of their marital relationship, the 1st plaintiff was begotten, and, thus, as the legal heirs of late Kesavan Nadar, they are entitled to redeem the mortgage property, was the case of the plaintiffs. The defendant, disputing the status of the plaintiffs, contended that the 2nd plaintiff is a Christian and she was married in accordance with the Christian rites and ceremonies in a Church by Madhavan Nadar. She was not the wife of Kesavan Nadar and the 1st plaintiff not the child of Kesavan Nadar, according to the defendant. Kesavan Nadar died unmarried and as per the personal law of succession applicable his siblings including Govindan Nadar, husband of the defendant, who were alive on his death, became entitled to his estate left behind. Refuting the entitlement of the plaintiffs to redeem the property, the defendant also contended that she was effected valuable improvements to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-, and in the event of redemption, she should be compensated for such improvements. 3. Refuting the entitlement of the plaintiffs to redeem the property, the defendant also contended that she was effected valuable improvements to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-, and in the event of redemption, she should be compensated for such improvements. 3. On the materials placed, which consisted of PWs.1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A4 for the plaintiffs, DWs.1 to 5 and Ext.B1 for the defendant, reports prepared by the advocate commissioner as Exts.C1 and C2 and third party exhibits Exts.X1 to X3 series, the trial court repelling the contentions of the defendant concluded that Kesavan Nadar had married the 2nd plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff was the child born to them out of the wedlock, and, thus, both the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the mortgaged property on payment of the mortgage price inclusive of the value of improvements as assessed and fixed in Ext.C2 report by the advocate commissioner. The decree granted allowing redemption of the property by the trial court in favour of the plaintiffs, as indicated above, was challenged in appeal by the defendant mainly impeaching the finding entered over the status of the plaintiffs as legal heirs of late Kesavan Nadar to redeem the mortgaged property. 4. The lower appellate court after re-appreciating the material tendered in the case held that the 2nd plaintiff is a Christian and late Kesavan Nadar, a Hindu, and a valid marriage between them after conversion of one to the religion of the other, following the rites and ceremonies thereof, has not been established in the case, and as such, the 2nd plaintiff would not get the status of a legally wedded wife and the 1st plaintiff that of a legitimate child of Kesavan Nadar, and so much so, both of them cannot claim to be the legal heirs of late Kesavan Nadar to redeem the mortgage property from the defendant. In that view of the matter, reversing the decree of redemption granted by the trial court, the suit was dismissed. Impeaching the correctness of that decision, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. 5. In that view of the matter, reversing the decree of redemption granted by the trial court, the suit was dismissed. Impeaching the correctness of that decision, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. 5. The following substantial questions of law have been raised for hearing the appeal: (i) Has not the lower appellate court gone wrong in examining the merit of the decree of redemption granted by the trial court, with reference to the challenge raised by the respondents (appellants before that court) impeaching the marriage of the 2nd plaintiff with deceased Kesavan Nadar, on the premise that the former was a Christian and the latter a Hindu, and as such, their marriage, if at all had taken place was invalid and not recognizable under law, when no such case was pleaded in the written statement, but, on the contrary, the defence was that late Kesavan Nadar was a bachelor and died issueless? (ii) Even assuming that the first plaintiff was begotton to the 2nd plaintiff in a marital relationship with late Kesavan Nadar, which was not valid as the parties belonged to different religions, and their marriage was without prior conversion of one of them to that of the other and performance of marriage ceremonies as recognized by custom or law, where there is evidence showing their long cohabitation as husband and wife and the public treating them as such, and the first plaintiff, as their daughter, are not the plaintiffs, as legal heirs of late Kesavan Nadar, entitled to redeem the suit property? 6. I heard the counsel on both side. The main challenge against the decree of the lower appellate court, by which, the decree of redemption passed by the trial court was reversed and set aside, raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs is that there was an improper exercise of appellate jurisdiction. That court had set aside the decree entering a finding over the validity of the marriage of late Kesavan Nadar with the 2nd plaintiff when the defendant had set up only a challenge that Kesavan Nadar was unmarried and died intestate as a bachelor. That court had set aside the decree entering a finding over the validity of the marriage of late Kesavan Nadar with the 2nd plaintiff when the defendant had set up only a challenge that Kesavan Nadar was unmarried and died intestate as a bachelor. When such be the case, where there was evidence to sustain the case of the plaintiffs regarding the marriage between the 2nd plaintiff and late Kesavan Nadar and that the 1st plaintiff was born out of their marital relationship, according to the counsel, undue significance cannot be given whether the 2nd plaintiff and Kesavan Nadar belonged to two different religions and whether their marriage was in accordance with the personal law applicable to the parties. The materials tendered in the case, according to the counsel, clearly demonstrate that there was a marriage between the 2nd plaintiff and Kesavan Nadar, after the death of the first husband of the 2nd plaintiff, Madhavan Nadar, who was none other than the elder brother of Kesavan Nadar, and the 1st plaintiff was born out of the wedlock of late Kesavan Nadar and 2nd plaintiff. The evidence of PW2, the elder brother of late Kesavan Nadar, according to the counsel, demonstrate that the marriage of 2nd plaintiff and Kesavan Nadar was solemnized in the presence of close relatives and it was conducted in accordance wit the rites and ceremonies of a Hindu marriage. When that be so, the challenge mooted by the defendant that the marriage between the 2nd plaintiff with her first husband. Madhavan Nadar, was conducted in a Church following the Christian rites and ceremonies and she continued as a Christian, and therefore, her second marriage with Kesavan Nadar, a Hindu, which was not even raised as a contention to resist the suit claim for redemption in the written statement, lacked any merit, but, the lower appellate court without even noticing that no such challenge was pleaded, according to the counsel, entered an erroneous finding that such a marriage was void, and as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to redeem the suit property from the defendant. The dismissal of the suit by the lower appellate court reversing the decree granted on such erroneous finding mis-appreciating the facts involved and also discarding the questions of law applicable, according to the counsel, is liable to be set aside and the decree of redemption granted by the trial court is liable to be restored allowing the appeal. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that no interference with the dismissal of the suit for redemption is called for. Where it has been shown by the materials tendered that 2nd plaintiff and late Kesavan Nadar, belonged to and continued in two different religions, with the personal law of such parties not recognizing marriage between them, the validity of such inter-religious marriage without conversion, the finding entered by the lower appellate court that a valid marriage between Kesavan Nadar and 2nd plaintiff has not been proved and 1stplaintiff, at best, could only be an illegitimate child, and thereby, both the plaintiffs are ineligible to seek redemption is proper, valid and correct. When the plaintiffs are shown to be not having the status of wife and child of late Kesavan Nadar, the mortgagor, as claimed by them, on which alone, right of redemption over the suit property was canvassed, the decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the lower appellate court reversing the decree of the trial court is unassailable, and it is only to be sustained dismissing the appeal according to the counsel. 7. Going through the judgments rendered by the trial court and also that of the lower appellate court with reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, what is patently discernible is that the lower appellate court has travelled much beyond the contours of pleadings of the parties and laboured much over questions which in fact never arose for adjudication on the case set up by the rival sides. Plaintiffs claimed the status of the daughter and wife of late Kesavan Nadar. The 2nd plaintiff, admittedly, was the wife of Madhavan Nadar, the elder brother of late Kesavan Nadar. After the death of her first husband, Kesavan Nadar married her and the 1st plaintiff was born out of their wedlock was the case of the plaintiffs to claim redemption of the mortgage outstanding with the defendant under Ext.A1 executed by Kesavan Nadar. The 2nd plaintiff, admittedly, was the wife of Madhavan Nadar, the elder brother of late Kesavan Nadar. After the death of her first husband, Kesavan Nadar married her and the 1st plaintiff was born out of their wedlock was the case of the plaintiffs to claim redemption of the mortgage outstanding with the defendant under Ext.A1 executed by Kesavan Nadar. The right of the plaintiffs to redeem the property was challenged by the defendant contending that Kesavan Nadar had died as a bachelor issueless and his right devolved upon his brothers. A further contention was raised that the 2nd plaintiff was a Christian and she had been married by her first husband, Madhavan Nadar in accordance with the Christian religion in a Church. She continued as a Christian was the case of the defendant. When this alone was the defence canvassed, the real issue involved was whether Kesavan Nadar had died as a bachelor and issueless or after having married the 2nd plaintiff after the death of his elder brother, and if so, whether the 1st plaintiff was his daughter. In fact, no case was set up in the written statement that if at all there was a marriage between Kesavan Nadar and 2nd plaintiff, it was invalid for the reason the 2nd plaintiff is a Christian. When that be so, if the marital relationship between them is established by materials, the determination of the validity of such marriage, which was never put forward as a challenge was not at all an issue to be resolved in the suit, which was one for redemption alone. The 2nd plaintiff was examined as PW1 in the case. Her evidence that after the death of her first husband Madhavan Nadar, Kesavan Nadar married her following the rites and ceremonies of Hindu religion, it is seen, was not even challenged. The trend of her cross examination would indicate that she had been married previously by Madhavan Nadar at a Church and she continued to be a Christian. PW2, who is the elder brother of Govindan Nadar and Kesavan Nadar gave evidence supporting the case of the plaintiffs that the marriage between Kesavan Nadar and 2nd plaintiff took place after the death of Madhavan Nadar in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of Hindu religion. He also asserted that his father and also all his brothers are Hindus. PW2, who is the elder brother of Govindan Nadar and Kesavan Nadar gave evidence supporting the case of the plaintiffs that the marriage between Kesavan Nadar and 2nd plaintiff took place after the death of Madhavan Nadar in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of Hindu religion. He also asserted that his father and also all his brothers are Hindus. Not even a single question was put to this witness with respect to the Christian marriage between the 2nd plaintiff and her first husband Madhavan Nadar as contended by the defendant when he was subjected to cross examination. There was also no challenge against his evidence regarding the second marriage of the 2nd plaintiff with Kesavan Nadar following the Hindu rites and ceremonies. The defendant in the case was examined as DW2. Her evidence would show that the status of the plaintiffs as legal heirs of late Kesavan Nadar was impeached for the reason that the 2nd plaintiff continued as a Christian and that her first marriage with Madhavan Nadar was at a Church. She had conceded that her husband and his brothers Kesavan Nadar and Madhavan Nadar were Hindus and their father was also a Hindu. Plaintiffs are now residing in a building situated in property, which belonged to Kesavan Nadar, and was earlier mortgaged by him to one Justus. Plaintiffs had got release of that mortgaged property from the mortgagee, Justus, and their occupation in the building situated therein commenced ten years before the institution of the present suit was also admitted to by the defendant. Ext.A4 is the release deed executed by Justus in respect of the mortgage property lying close to the plaintiff schedule property. Plaintiffs had got release of that mortgaged property from the mortgagee, Justus, and their occupation in the building situated therein commenced ten years before the institution of the present suit was also admitted to by the defendant. Ext.A4 is the release deed executed by Justus in respect of the mortgage property lying close to the plaintiff schedule property. Ext.A4 release deed is seen executed on 10.12.1978, that is, 14 years before the institution of the present suit, releasing the mortgage in favour of the present plaintiffs recognizing them as the legal heirs, as daughter and wife, of Kesavan Nadar, the mortgagor, Where the question involved on the pleadings of the parties was whether Kesavan Nadar had died as a bachelor and issueless, which was the defence raised to challenge the claim of the plaintiffs to redeem the property as the legal heirs of late Kesavan Nadar, the lower appellate court has directed its enquiry more on the question whether there court could have been a valid marriage between Kesavan Nadar and 2ndplaintiff when some materials tendered by the defendant indicated that her previous marriage with Madhavan Nadar was conducted at a Christian Church and, previously she professed Christian religion. The whole exercise so undertaken by the lower appellate court to determine the validity of the marriage between Kesavan Nadar and the 2nd plaintiff in the case was quite unwarranted. Even assuming that the first marriage between the 2nd plaintiff and Madhavan Nadar was conducted at a church and she then was a Christian, it does not follow that she continued to be a Christian ever since. The evidence of PW2, the elder brother of Madhavan Nadar and Kesavan Nadar, so far as the present case, should have been treated and accepted as decisive on the disputed question as to whether there was a valid marriage between Kesavan Nadar and the 2nd plaintiff, and as indicated earlier, there was no challenge against his evidence that a marriage between them took place following the rites and ceremonies of Hindu religion. The mortgaged property covered by the suit is lying adjoining to the property already redeemed by the plaintiffs as legal heirs of late Kesavan Nadar from the mortgagee, as under Ext.A4 release deed, that too, 14 years before the institution of the suit is conceded to by the defendant in her evidence. 8. The mortgaged property covered by the suit is lying adjoining to the property already redeemed by the plaintiffs as legal heirs of late Kesavan Nadar from the mortgagee, as under Ext.A4 release deed, that too, 14 years before the institution of the suit is conceded to by the defendant in her evidence. 8. No party to a suit or proceedings will be allowed to raise inconsistent pleas. He cannot give up the case set out in the pleadings and propound the new and different one on the basis of the evidence tendered in the case. It is the fundamental rule of pleading that a party cannot approbate and reprobate. In the nature of the suit where the right to redeem the property was claimed by the plaintiffs, as the daughter and wife of late Kesavan Nadar, and that was disputed by the defendant contending that Kesavan Nadar died unmarried and issueless, the validity of the marriage of Kesavan Nadar with the 2nd plaintiff or the paternity of the 1st plaintiff as his daughter cannot be gone into with reference to the religion professed by the 2nd plaintiff, once, evidence was let in to prove the marriage between Kesavan Nadar and 2nd plaintiff. The defendant has no case that the marriage between the 2nd plaintiff and Kesavan Nadar was invalid since they belonged to two different religions, but only a contention that Kesavan Nadar died unmarried and issueless and the 2nd plaintiff is a Christian and had married her first husband Madhavan Nadar at a Church. It is well settled that evidence shall be tailored strictly according to the pleadings and cannot be a probing adventure in the dark giving surprise to the opposite party. If the defendant had a case that marriage between Kesavan Nadar and the 2nd plaintiff was invalid for any reason, it should have been so pleaded to resist the claim of the plaintiffs. Similar to a situation that ownership and easement rights are inconsistent and cannot co-exist the defence canvassed that Kesavan Nadar died unmarried and issueless cannot go with an inconsistent plea that his marriage with the 2nd plaintiff was invalid as they belonged to different religion. Both of which cannot at all go together. Even assuming that such inconsistent defences could be canvassed for, necessarily, the basic facts to sustain such pleas must be spelt out in the pleadings. Both of which cannot at all go together. Even assuming that such inconsistent defences could be canvassed for, necessarily, the basic facts to sustain such pleas must be spelt out in the pleadings. Other than contending that Kesavan Nadar died unmarried and issueless and the 2nd plaintiff is a Christian, whose first marriage with Madhavan Nadar was at a church, nothing more was stated in the written statement by the defendant to impeach the legal status claimed by the plaintiffs to redeem as the daughter and wife of late Kesavan Nadar. Validity of the marriage of 2nd plaintiff with Kesavan Nadar, the mortgagor or paternity of the 1st plaintiff as his daughter and whether the 2nd plaintiff previously was a Christian and continued to be so at the point of time when the married Kesavan Nadar, where the factum of such marriage was undoubtedly established by the plaintiffs in the case, are outside the scope of the suit, suit for redemption, especially where no defence impeaching the validity of the marriage was raised nor any issue thereof on the basis of the pleading of the parties, which was absent in the defence canvassed, was cast in the suit for adjudication. 9. the religion which the 2nd plaintiff professed earlier and whether her first marriage with Madhavan Nadar was at a Christian church or not, in the given facts of the case, were not required to be gone into, but only whether she had been treated as the wife by late Kesavan Nadar, and recognized as such by the relatives and public and also whether the 1st plaintiff was his daughter born out of his relationship with the 2nd plaintiff. To the pointed question asserting that the 1st plaintiff was the daughter of late Kesavan Nadar and also regarding the place of marriage of Kesavan Nadar with 2nd plaintiff, it is seen, the defendant examined as DW1 had pleaded ignorance despite setting up a case that Kesavan Nadar had died unmarried and issueless. When the defendant had only a case that Kesavan Nadar died unmarried and issueless, she cannot be heard to contend that if at all a marital relationship between the 2ndplaintiff and Kesavan Nadar is established by materials, then the legality of that relationship as to whether there could be valid marriage between them, should be determined in the case. When the defendant had only a case that Kesavan Nadar died unmarried and issueless, she cannot be heard to contend that if at all a marital relationship between the 2ndplaintiff and Kesavan Nadar is established by materials, then the legality of that relationship as to whether there could be valid marriage between them, should be determined in the case. No enquiry or adjudication over the religion of the 2nd plaintiff at the time of her second marriage with Kesavan Nadar nor the validity of such marriage arose for consideration in the suit on the defence raised in the written statement of the defendant. The evidence of the 2nd plaintiff as PW1 that she is a Hindu and that her second marriage with Kesavan Nadar was conducted following the Hindu rites and customs is supported by PW2, the elder brother of Kesavan Nadar and Madhavan Nadar. Ext.A4, the release deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of another mortgage executed by Kesavan Nadar, clearly demonstrate the entitlement of the plaintiffs to redeem the property from the defendant as the wife and child of the late Kesavan Nadar. There was absolutely no merit in the plea set up by the defendant that late Kesavan Nadar died unmarried and issueless. The approach taken by the lower appellate court to determine the validity of the marriage between Kesavan Nadar and 2ndplaintiff with reference to Exts.X1 t X3 series, the previous marriage of the 2nd plaintiff with Madhavan Nadar, and the conclusion formed thereunder to unsettle the finding entered by the trial court upholding the right of the plaintiffs to redeem the suit property from the defendant as the legal heirs of late Kesavan Nadar, in the nature of the pleadings of the parties in the case was no doubt an irregular exercise of appellate jurisdiction, and it has undoubtedly caused miscarriage of justice. The decision rendered by the lower appellate court non-suiting the plaintiffs is wholly unsustainable, and it is liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, reversing the decree of dismissal of the suit rendered by the lower appellate court, the decree passed by the trial court allowing the plaintiffs to redeem the suit property on payment of the mortgage money with the value of the improvements fixed, is restored. 10. In the result, reversing the decree of dismissal of the suit rendered by the lower appellate court, the decree passed by the trial court allowing the plaintiffs to redeem the suit property on payment of the mortgage money with the value of the improvements fixed, is restored. A period of three months time from the date of this judgment is provided to the appellant to tender the deposit of redemption price with notice to the defendant, making it clear the other directions issued by the trial court as regards surrender, entitlement of interest etc. shall prevail. Appeal is allowed directing both sides to suffer their respective costs.