JAGIR SINGH Vs. DIDAR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal:-

(2.) The suit was filed for recovery of possession of two marlas of land out of 19 marlas in Khasra No. 146. The contention was that the plaintiffs had allowed for one karam as vacant space south of their construction and they have placed windows facing outwards and had also allowed for flow of water through the said one karam. The cause of action for the suit was that the defendant who owned property in Khasra No. 140 on the south had trespassed into the plaintiffs' portion of property in about 2 marlas on the southern boundary and raised a wall. This, according to the plaintiffs, was an encroachment which would required to be removed and delivered to the plaintiffs. The defendant denied any such encroachment and contended that there was still space available for the plaintiffs to let sewerage water flow and the defendant would also contend that the construction had been there for the last five years. At the trial, the plaintiffs had taken the assistance of a Local Commissioner to file a report with plan.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant points out that in a suit for ejectment a plaintiff could succeed only on the basis of his own pleading and cannot deviate for his claim to title on matters which are not specifically pleaded. The counsel would submit that so long as the plaintiffs' possession was held to consist of 19 marlas, there was no scope for an inference that there had been an encroachment by the defendant.