Heard learned counsel Mr. S. M. Vibhute Advocate, h/f. Mr. V. C. Solshe, Advocate for the appellant. Also heard learned A.G.P. Mr. J. S. Gavhane. The State of Maharashtra or its officers are not party to this second appeal. This matter was listed before this court for hearing on 6th of August, 2008. That day I heard learned counsel for the appellant wherein the learned counsel for appellant had invited my attention to Exh.5 i.e. Hissa form No.4 (Copy of Gunakar Book). On my query, the learned counsel for appellant informed me on that day that survey manual is not available with the High Court Bar Association, Aurangabad, Bench at Aurangabad.

In this premise help of learned A.G.P. Mr. J. S. Gavhane was sought. He was requested to produce on record the format of Hissa Form No.12, Hissa Form No.11 and Circular issued by the Settlement Commissioner, Pune on 24th of June, 1940. Hearing of the appeal was adjourned. That is why this second appeal is today listed for admission the learned A.G.P. Mr. J. S. Gavhani has made available circular issued by the Settlement Commissioner on 24th June, 1940 and format of Hissa form No.4, Hissa form No.11 and Hissa form No.12. All these documents are marked by letter Exh.X collectively for the purpose of identification and taken on record. Mr. Gavhane has made available this circular and formats with the assistance of Mr. Balwant Warkad, Shirastedar from the office of T.I.L.R. The learned A.G.P. and Mr. Warkad, Shirastedar from the office of T.I.L.R. are relieved.

2. The appellant in this second appeal was original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.35111990 and the respondents in this appeal are the defendants in the suit. Parties, hereinafter, are referred to their status as plaintiff and defendants for convenience. The plaintiff had sought declaration that plaintiff is owner of the suit property and it also sought a decree for perpetual injunction against the defendants. This suit, after hearing the parties, came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.351/1990, was challenged by the aggrieved plaintiff. It was Regular Civil Appeal No.68/2003. This appeal, after hearing the parties, came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nilanga (First Appellate Court). It is this judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is the subject matter of the present second appeal. The agricultural land survey No.23/1, admeasuring 32 R. situated at village Koyajiwadi, Tal, Nilanga, District Latur is the subject matter of the suit. The parties in Civil Suit are expected to plead material facts in their pleading. The pleading is defined under of Order 6, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure, plaint is pleading of plaintiff and written statement is pleading of defendant. The parties, after pleading the material facts, have to substantiate those material facts by evidence either documentary or oral. While leading oral evidence, parties have to lead evidence in consonance of the pleadings.

Evidence besides the pleading cannot be led by the parties in view of the provisions laid down under Order 6, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Parties are not permitted to travel beyond the pleadings. Oral evidence, if besides, his pleading lead by the parties, needs to be excluded by the Court while considering and appreciating the evidence of the party in a suit. Thus, the pleading is foundation of the stance taken by the party in civil suit. Such on importance of the pleadings has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India Vs. S. N. Goyal, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 4355 : [2008 ALL SCR 2139]. Keeping in mind the importance of the pleadings, now I turn to examine the pleading in the case on hand since entire record and proceeding is available before this Court.

3. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that suit is for the declaration of ownership with perpetual injunction regarding the agricultural l