1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in a suit which was originally filed for fixation of boundary and later converted into recovery of possession. In this second appeal, the only question to be considered is with respect to a pond existing on the north-western portion of the plaintiff's property. Though there was a dispute with regard to a mango tree situated on the boundary of the plaintiff's property, the learned counsel for the appellant did not press that point in the second appeal.

2. With regard to the pond in question, the trial court originally denied the relief to the plaintiff and directed the boundary to be fixed on the eastern side of the pond and excluding the pond from the plaintiff's ownership and possession. The plaintiff filed an appeal and the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court. The appellate court observed that the learned Munsiff accepted Ext. C2 plan and he was of opinion that the survey demarcation in Ext. C2 plan is correct. Since the plaintiff did not care to amend the plaint by adding the relief for declaration to the effect that the pond, mango tree and the blue shaded portion in Ext. C2 plan belonged to her and are