A relief not founded on pleadings cannot be granted, enforcing strict adherence to procedural requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure.

J U D G M E N T

The present second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the III Additional District Court, Kozhikode in AS No.264/2006 dated 13.6.2011, by which the judgment and decree of the Additional Munsiff’s Court-I, Kozhikode dated 1.12.2005 in O.S.No.714/2003, a suit for recovery of possession and permanent prohibitory injunction, were reversed by the first appellate court.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the plaintiff’s father, Kandakutty @ Appukutty, who executed a settlement deed, document No.2946/2003 of Kakkodi Bazar in favour of the plaintiff and she is in exclusive ownership and possession of the same. The defendants are the children of late Sankaran, the brother of the plaintiff’s father. The 1st defendant is the owner of four cents of property lying on the South-

Western side of the plaint schedule property. On 17.12.2003, the defendants, along with their men, trespassed into the property and attempted to tamper with the boundaries and demolish the temporary shed built by the plaintiff. It is further contended that the only way to enter into the plaint schedule property is through the 1^st defendant’s property and that the plaintiff has obtained an easement by necessity with respect to the said way. The defendants resisted the suit and contended that the plaintiff does not have title over the plaint schedule property going by the settlement deed No.2946/2003 of Kakkodi Bazar. Neither the plaintiff nor her father had any right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked and she herself was examined as PW1. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B11 documents were marked and the 4^th defendant was examined as DW1. Exts.C1 series and C2 series are the reports, plans and survey sketch etc. prepared by the Advocate Commissioner, who was examined as CW1. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property and thus decreed the suit, directing the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the plaint schedule property and consequently, issued a permanent prohibitory injunction against them. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred A.S.No.264/2006 before the III Additional District Court, Kozhikode. The first appellate court, on re-appreciation of evidence, found that the plea of the plaintiff that she has got right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property cannot be sustained, inasmuch as the plaintiff’s father did not have any balance property to be left out to be transferred in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the findings of the trial court were reversed and the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up before this Court in the present second appeal.

3. The appeal, originally filed on 6.9.2011, was listed for admission on 14.11.2011, then the matter was adjourned to 29.11.2011 at the request of the appellant. When the matter was listed on 29.11.2011, it was adjourned to 16.12.2011, and thereafter to 19.1.2012, both adjournments were also at the request of the appellant. On 19.1.2012 also, the appellant requested time and, accordingly, adjourned the appeal to 3.2.2012 and thereafter to 23.2.2012, when, upon finding that the appellant was not ready, the matter was adjourned to be listed when moved again. The matter was moved thereafter for admission on 27.6.2018 and again the appellant requested for adjournment and the appeal was listed on 29.6.2018, then al