The courts are bound to take into consideration all the rights of the parties to the suit, both legal and equitable, and give effect thereto by their decrees as far as possible but the courts are not at liberty to grant a relief either not sought for in the plaint or that does not naturally flow from the grounds of claim as stated in the plaint.

1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment of modification.

2. The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title and for confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession in respect of 71 decimals of land, being plot No. 2488, appertaining to Khata No. 60, of village Anaith in the district of Shahabad.

3. The trial Court decreed the suit and declared the title of the plaintiff over the suit land and confirmed the plaintiffs possession over the same. Thereafter, the contesting defendants preferred an appeal and the lower appellate Court, though confirmed the findings of the trial Court, yet declared that the disputed plot jointly belonged to the contesting defendants (appellants in the lower appellate Court) and the plaintiff (respondent in the lower appellate Court) and that they were entitled to joint possession over the same. The lower appellate Court further declared that the defendants 1 and 2 (the appellants before the lower appellate Court) had half share in the disputed plot and the remaining half belonged to the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has advanced only one submission and that is to the effect that the judgment and decree under appeal, being against the pleadings of the parties, are not in accordance with law and it was completely beyond the jurisdiction of the lower appellate Court to make out a new case for the party which was never pleaded.

5. In order to appreciate the short submission advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant it is pertinent to state a few facts.

6. The plaintiff"s case was that the lands appertaining to C. S. Khata No. 60 of village Anaith, originally belonged to one Rajaram Mahto but it was wrongly recorded in the name of Jaikishun Mahto. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Rajaram Mahto, Baijnath Mahto filed Title Suit No. 90 of 1910 for a declaration that the lands under khata No. 60 belonged to Rajaram Mahto and after his death he (Baijnath Mahto) was the owner of entire lands of khata No. 60, being the sole heir of Rajaram Mahto. The title suit was decreed and the judgment and decree passed in the suit were also confirmed in appeal (in Appeal No. 278 of 1911). Thereafter, Baijnath Mahto got delivery of possession over all the lands of Khata No. 60 and since then he remained in possession over the same. The plaintiff"s further case was that 36 years ago Baijnath Mahto died in the state of jointness with his two sons Imrit Mahto and Ganesh Mahto, who, according to the plaintiff, came in possession over the entire lands of khata No. 60. Some time after Imrit Mahto died issueless and hence Ganesh Mahto alone remained in possession over the entire lands of Khata No. 60.

7. The plaintiff"s further case was that on 5-11-1944 the aforesaid Ganesh Mahto sold the disputed plot, along with the other lands, to Thakur Prasad, the plaintiffs father, for a consideration of Rs. 1500.00 by a registered sale-deed and put him in possession thereafter.

8. It would be pertinent to mention here that the present suit out of which the present second appeal arises was filed by Thakur Prasad and Shri Govind Prasad Sinha (the present appellant). Thakur Prasad died during the pendency of the suit and his name was expunged from the record and the present plaintiff remained the sole plaintiff in the suit.

9. The plaintiff"s case was that since the date of purchase his father Thakur Prasad and himself all along remained in possession of the disputed plot on payment of rent regularly. The plaintiff"s further case was that the disputed land was originally an orchard but about six to seven years prior to the institution of the suit the plaintiff"s father cut away the trees and sold them. The plaintiff"s further case was that eight years prior to the filing of the suit plaintiff"s father had manufactured bricks in the suit plot and used