A party cannot claim possessory title to a property unless it has specifically pleaded and supported such a claim with evidence.

1. - This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Baran, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and reversing the decree passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Kota.

2. Smt. Kesar Bai was the owner and in possession of the suit house described in para 1 of the plaint, which was constructed by her husband Shri Bala Bux. Mst. Ramjanki Bai was the daughter of Mst. Kesar Bai, while Mool Chand and Bhag Chand, plaintiff respondents are the sons of Mst. Ramjanki Bai. Smt. Kesar Bai had no son and, therefore, she bequeathed this house to the plaintiff-respondents, by a registered Will (Ex. 1) dated August 7, 1965, and the plaintiffs came in possession of the suit premises on the death of Smt. Kesar Bai and since then, they have been in possession of the suit premises. It was alleged in the plaint that when the plaintiffs' father had gone to some other village, the defendant Came and illegally occupied two rooms in this house and fixed one pipe in front of one of the rooms. After the death of Smt. Kesar, the plaintiffs kept certain tenants who have been paying rent to the plaintiffs and since the defendant was trying to dispossess the plaintiffs' from the other portion of the suit house also, the plaintiffs filed the present suit on 15-3-1967, praying that the defendant be dispossessed from the portion which he was illegally occupying and that he be further restrained by granting a permanent injunction against him from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs.

3. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement on 16-10-1967 pleading, inter alia, that the house was built by his father Nathu Lal, and on the death of Nathu Lal, the property was partitioned between his sons Bala Bux. Manna Lal and Chaturbhuj. Bala Bux came in possession of the property situated in the west of the house which he had already sold. The suit house came in possession of the defendant and his brother Chaturbhuj and hence, they were in possession as its owner. It has further been alleged that before the death of Nathu Lal, he lived in this house, and after his death, the defendant has been in possession of this house continuously.

4. The trial court after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the suit house was not built by Bala Bux, as alleged in the plaint, and that Bala Bux had sold the property which fell to his share; that the plaintiffs' never kept tenants in the disputed house and that the defendant did not illegally occupy the suit house, as alleged in the plaint, but was in possession in his own rights.

5. The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Baran, who by its judgment and decree dated 24-1-1973 held that the house in dispute was not built by Bala Bux and further that Bala Bux had sold portion of his house as mentioned in the written statement. It however, held that Smt. Kesar Bai was the owner of the house in dispute as mentioned in the Will (Ex. A-l). Learned Additional District Judge further held that even if the ownership of the plaintiffs in the suit house was not proved, the plaintiffs were entitled to get a decree on the basis of possessory title. He thus, accepted the appeal and decreed the suit against the defendant for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises and further granted a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, restraining him from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiffs' case was based on title and not on possessory title and the issue was to the effect as to whether the disputed house had been built by Balabux. Both the learned courts below have come to a concurrent finding that the suit house was not built by Balabux and still, learned Additional District Judge held that Smt. Kesar Bai was the owner of the