The plaintiff's entitlement to seek further relief was contingent on the events occurring during the pendency of the suit, and the plaintiff had the right to seek necessary amendment in the plaint to claim further relief.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff/whose suit for declaration of title, issuance of permanent preventive injunction and for correction of revenue papers in respect of an agricultural holding has been dismissed by the two courts below, has come up in appeal.

( 2 ) THE suit property is land survey No. 451 area 2 Bigha 15 Biswas situated at village Kanuapura of Tehsil Lahar, Distt. Bhind. Undisputedly, the land was custodia legis on the date of the institution of the suit as having been attached by the Sub-divisional Magistrate under S. 145/ 146, Cr. P. C.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, he acquired title with possession in the suit property from one Jairam s/o Ochhe under a registered sale deed 15-7-1967. However, the defendant has got himself entered in to revenue papers on the basis of an ex parte decree passed in C. O. S. 237a/63 which decree relates to survey No. 421 and not 451. Because the defendant has threatened the plaintiff with dispossession in denial of his/title and relying on the wrongful entry in the revenue papers, the plaintiff had to bring the suit. ( 4 ) THE defendant contested the case of the plaintiff by submitting that he was holding the land as subtenant. that the decree in C. O. S. No. 237a/63 in fact related to land survey No. 451 and survey No. 421 was mistakenly stated in the earlier suit; that in view of the defendant's status as subtenant having been enlarged into that of a Bhumiswami, the plaintiff was not entitled to any decree. It was also pleaded that by virtue of decree in C. O. S. 237a/63, the defendant's status as subtenant over the suit property was recognised.

( 5 ) A subsequent event which occurred during the pendency of the suit, not disputed by either party and which is going to have a material bearing on the decision of this appeal, may also be noticed. During the pendency of the suit, proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P. C. came to be decided wherein the defendant was declared to be in possession and the receiver was directed to hand over possession to the defendant. 5-A. The trial Court held that the plaintiff rightly acquired the Bhumiswami rights under the sale deed dated 15-7-67; that the defendant was not holding the land as subtenant; that the decree in the earlier suit mentioning survey No. 421 could not be construed to be a decree as to survey No. 451. In spite of answering all the issues for the plaintiff and against the defendant, the trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiff though entitled to sue for possession had failed to ask for that relief and hence the suit was not maintainable.

( 6 ) THE appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the Court below has also been dismissed. The learned lower appellate Court has held that the decree in the earlier suit erroneously mentioned survey No. 421 and it did relate to survey No. 451 which was the property in suit. Still, the Court observed that in these proceedings notice of that fact could not be taken unless the decree was amended by the Court passing the same. The learned Additional District Judge also affirmed the finding of the trial Court that the defendant was not holding the land as subtenant. The dismissal of the suit by the trial Court was upheld for failure of the plaintiff to seek relief of possession. The lower appellate Court also refused an opportunity of amendment in the relief clause of the plaint on the ground that the objection as to the maintainability of the suit was taken from the very beginning but the plaintiff did not pray for an amendment earlier.

( 7 ) BOTH the courts below have concurrently held that Jairam, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff was the recorded Bhumiswami of the land and was competent to alienate the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has rightly acquired the right, title and interest of Jairam. Both the courts below have held that the defendant was not holding the land as subtenant and hence the question of his acquiring status of a Bhumiswami on the coming into f