The main question of law that is argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiffs have to fail as they have not prayed, for declaration of title or recovery of possession as, according to learned counsel for the appellant, it is admitted in the plaint that the defendant had already encroached on the suit property.

2. The prayer in the plaint was for grant of an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs’ possession and for a mandatory injunction for removal of the construction already made by the defendant and marked as A.B. in the plan attached to the plaint. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in paragraph 6 of the plaint, it is admitted that the defendant had already trespassed on the suit property. The following sentence is relied upon by the learned counsel:

“6. The space claimed by the defendant is marked as A.C. on the south and CD. on the west. Inspite of all the above fact the defendant has started construction on 25. 1977 and in fact has already encroached on the portion marked A.B. in the plan by putting up a construction and is continuing in her nefarious act inspite of plaintiffs protest.”

L