Sanjay Karol, J.

Defendants’ Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the ld. First appellate court could have granted a decree for possession in a suit for injunction simplicitor, more so when the findings of both the courts is that on the date of filing the suit the plaintiff was not in possession and in the plaint no relief qua possession has been prayed for and keeping in view the provisions of Order 7 Rule 7 CPC?

2. Whether the ld. First appellate court could have granted the relief of possession which was not claimed and for which court fees had not been paid by the plaintiff, as the same had to be given according to the value of the subject matter whereas the court fee was paid only to obtain an injunction. If so, its effect thereupon?

3. Whether general reliefs can be granted by the civil courts in view of the specific provisions of Order 7 Rule 7 which provides that relief is to be specifically stated. If so its effect thereto?

2. On 3.3.2004 plaintiff Gokal Chand (respondent herein) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction pleading that the defendants Anil Kumar, Roop Lal and Smt. Ram Payari (appellants herein) have been interfering with his cultivatory possession over the suit land owned by him. On 28.2.2004, despite resistance, defendants threw mud over the suit land. With these averments, plaintiff prayed as under:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the submissions made herein above, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land of the plaintiff, in any manner or changing the nature of the suit land in any manner may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. And/or any other relief, to which the plaintiff be found entitled to, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants alongwith the costs of present suit and justice be done.”

3. Defendants resisted the suit claiming themselves to in possession of the suit land and having perfected their title by way of adverse possession.

4. Based on the respective pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the suit is bad for min-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

4. Relief.”

5. Even though no specific issue with regard to the title of the defendants was framed, yet the parties led evidence on the same. Answering the issues and adjudicating the points raised, trial Court, in terms of judgment and decree dated 1.10.2005, passed in Civil Suit No. 8 of 2004, titled as Gokal Chand vs. Anil Kumar & others, dismissed the suit holding that: (i) in view of the demarcation report dated 9.5.2001 (Ext. DW-1/A) prepared prior to the institution of the suit, plaintiff already stood dispossessed from the suit land; and (ii) defendant had no right or title over the same.

6. Such findings stood accepted by the defendant but however in the plaintiff’s appeal, the lower appellate Court, in exercise of its powers under Order VII Rule 7 CPC, in terms of the judgment and decree dated 23.5.2006, passed in Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2005, titled as Gokal Chand vs. Anil Kumar & others, while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, decreed the plaintiff’s suit as under:-

“As a sequel to my finding on point No. 1 above, the appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment and decree are set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed for possession of the land comprised in khewat khatauni No. 72/91 khasra No. 53, 54, and 56 and khata khatauni No. 73/92 khasra No. 55, situated at village Chadyara/346 tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. However, there is no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared.”

7. Havin