Jurisdiction of Court go grant relief should be based on pleadings.

1. 1st Defendant in O.S. No.431 of 1977, on the file of District Munsif, Kulithalai, is the appellant. The plaintiff who is the 1st respondent in this second appeal died and his legal heirs have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The parties herein will be referred to in accordance with their rank in the suit.

2. The 2nd defendant is a temple, under which both the plaintiff and 1st defendant are lessees. The suit filed by the plaintiff was one for Declaration that the lane marked as A B E F in the plan attached to the plaint belongs to the plaintiff and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st defendant, his men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lane, and in the alternative to recover possession of the suit lane from the de fendant and to recover future profits and costs of the suit. As I said earlier, both the plaintiff and 1st defendants are lessees under the 2nd defendant, and they have constructed separate houses. Both of them are in possession of the respective buildings. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he is entitled to a site of 42 feet east to west and 70 feet to south which is shown as A B C D plot in the plan attached to the plaint. According to the plaintiff, the suit lane is 5 feet east-west and se parately marked as A B E F in the plaint plan and the same is running on the west of the house of the plaintiff. It is his case that he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same for the last more than 40 years. It is further stated that the 1st defendant is entitled to only the site of 37 feet east west and 70 feet north-south situate on the western side of the plaintiff’s site, where he has constructed his house. That portion of the 1st defendants property is marked as A B G H in the plaint plan. It is further stated that separating the two plots of the plaintiff and 1st defendant, there was a thorny fence and in course of time it got effaced, and when the plaintiff wanted to reconstruct the fence, the same was objected to by the 1st defendant. The suit was therefore, necessitated for the reliefs stated above.

3. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, he disputed the claim of the plaintiff. According to him, the suit lane is part of his property and the plaintiff has no right over the same. He alone is in possession of the same for the last 50 years. In fact, certain attempts were made by the plaintiff to interfere with his possession, which necessitated to file a complaint before the local police. It was at that time, the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. In the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant it contended that it is an unnecessary party, since no relief has been sought for against it. It prayed for its costs.

5. The trial Court on the above pleadings took oral an documentary evidence. On the side of the plaintiff Exs.A1 to A5 were marked and Exs.B1 to B13 were marked on the side of the defendants. As Court Exhibits, Exs.C1 to C4 were marked, which are the Commissioners reports and plans. The plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and an independent witness was examined as P.W.2. The 1st defendant got himself examined as D.W.1, apart from examining other two independent witnesses.

6. The trial Court as per the revised judgment dated 26. 1981 dismissed the suit. It came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any right nor he is in possession of the suit lane. It may be stated that the suit was originally dismissed as per judgment dated 7. 1978, on which an appeal has been taken by the plaintiff as AS No.123 of 1978, on the file of Subordinate Judge at Karur. Some additional evidence was let in before the appellate Court, and consequently the judgment of the trial Court was set aside and remanded with a direction to the trial Court to give reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. It was after remand, some more evidence was let