A suit for declaration of title must seek possession to be valid; relief beyond pleadings is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. This appeal under Section 100 has been preferred by appellant-defendant No. 1 questioning the legality and sustainability of impugned judgment and decree dated 24.09.2013 passed by learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Sakti District Janjgir-Champa in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/2012, by which learned First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge,Class-II, Jaijaipur, in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2010.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to in terms of their status shown in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2010 before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this appeal, as projected in the plaint, are that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 jointly purchased land bearing Khasra No. 5124/4, measuring 0.37 acres, from Radheshyam, and their names were duly recorded in the revenue records. Subsequently, partition took place between them, under which each of them received land measuring 0.18 acres, while 0.01 acres of the land was left for a road/ passage. The portion of land allotted to the plaintiff, described in the Schedule A-B-C-D of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the suit land), was distinct from the share allotted to defendant No.1, described in Ka, A, Kh, Sa. On the land of his share, plaintiff constructed a house on part therein marked Chh, Ba, Fa, Nda, admeasuring 45 x 15 sq.ft., and was in peaceful possession thereof. It is pleaded that during absence of plaintiff, defendant No.1 forcibly broke open the lock, took possession of the said house, and started construction upon it. Plaintiff lodged a complaint before the Tehsildar, Jaijaipur, who issued an order of stay restraining further construction. Against this order, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer, who affirmed the order of Tehsildar. Thereafter, the plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking —Declaration that the house situated on the suit land (Chh-Ba-Nda-Fa) belongs to him; Possession of the said house from defendant No.1; and Permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit land.

4. Defendant No.1, in his written statement and counterclaim, denied all material averments made in the plaint. He specifically denied that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had jointly purchased Khasra No. 5124/4, measuring 0.37 acres, from Radheshyam, or that any partition took place between them as pleaded in plaint. He further denied that the plaintiff got 0.18 acres of land as described in the schedule annexed to the plaint, or that he ever constructed or resided in a house thereon. Defendant No.1 also denied the pleading that he forcibly broke open the lock of the plaintiff’s house (shown in the plaint map as portions Chh, Ba, Nda, Ha) or took unlawful possession of it. He pleaded that the orders passed by the Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer were obtained illegally and without jurisdiction at the instance of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff neither has title nor possession over the suit land. The defendant asserted that he alone had purchased the entire 0.37 acres of land comprised in Khasra No. 5124/4 from Radheshyam after paying full consideration amount, and that the plaintiff’s name was included in the sale deed only due to mutual trust and close relationship between them. Defendant No.1 also stated that he had stopped the Gram Panchayat from constructing a public toilet in front