JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J. :— This appeal by special leave has been filed by the defendant in a suit for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-respondents over five acres of land in the Bangalore City. The disputed area was acquired for using it as a burial ground in 1927-28 under G.O. No. 4888 and, according to the case of the appellant, compensation was paid out of the Municipal funds and the land has been in its possession since then. According to the plaintiff respondents, the aforementioned G.O. was cancelled and the land was settled with Guttahalli Hanumaiah in 1929 under G.O. No. 3540, which, however, has not been produced in the case. Guttahalli Hanumaiah remained in possession till 1937 when he died. After his death his widow the plaintiff No. 2 came in possession and continued till 1969 when an area of 2.02 acres was sold to the plaintiff No. 1. In 1970 there was an agreement of sale by the plaintiff No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 for the sale of the remaining land also for a total sum of Rs. 20,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- is said to have been paid. On 8-8-1973 the plaintiff got his name entered in the revenue records. On the 3rd of September, 1973 the present suit was filed stating that cause of action arose on 24-8-1973 when a function was held at the instance of the appellant Corporation laying down the foundation stone of a building of a proposed school on the disputed area.

2. The appellant denied the claim of the plaintiffs and asserted its continuous possession since 1927 and also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable as the relief claimed was limited to permanent injunction without asking for a decree to declare the plaintiffs title.

3. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal by the appellant, the first appellate court reversed the decision and dismissed the suit holding that the appellant has been in continuous possession. The suit was also held to be not maintainable. The plaintiffs challenged the decision by a regular second appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment the second appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was restored.

4. So far the scope of the suit is concerned, a perusal of the plaint clearly indicates that the foundation of the claim of the plaintiffs is the title which they have pleaded in express terms in paragraph 2 of the plaint. It has been stated that after cancelling the acquisition of the suit property for a burial ground the land was transferred to Guttahalli Hanumaiah under G.O. No. 3540 dated 10-6-1929 on payment of upset price. In paragraphs 3 and 5 the plaintiffs have reiterated that the first plaintiff was the owner-in-possession. It is well established that for deciding the nature of a suit the entire plaint has to be read and not merely the relief portion, and the plaint in the present case does not leave any manner of doubt that the suit has been filed for establishing the title of the plaintiffs and on that basis getting an injunction against the appellant Corporation. The court fee payable on the plaint has also to be assessed accordingly. It follows that the appellants objection that the suit is not maintainable has to be rejected. The Additional Civil Judge, who heard the appeal from the judgment of the trial court, examined the question of plaintiffs title and rejected their case. The question of possession was also separately taken up, and it was found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession until 24-8-1973 when they allege that the appellant Corporation trespassed. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed.

5. In reversing the decision of the first appellate court the High Court committed several serious errors of law. The High Court appears to have been confused on the question whether the issue of title to the disputed property was involved in the suit or not. The judgment shows that the High Court has made several inco