Short Note : In the instant case the plaintiff specifically pleaded that the suit property which consisted of khasra numbers 55/2, 178/2, 580/2, 1858, 2085/1, 2099/1 and 2375/1. located in Mouza Bharregaon, district Rajnandgaon, was purchased by him benami in the name of his brother Purroo. In support of the purchase of the property he had filed a patta (Ex. P-2) granted to him by the Gaontia. In the alternative, he prayed that in case it is held that the suit property is not the self-acquired property, then it was a part of the joint Hindu family property. He further claimed possession of the suit lands. Thus, the suit was for declaration and possession. It was also pleaded that the gift of the suit property by Purroo in favour of his daughter Mst. Chaitibai and the subsequent transfer of the property in favour of Ramdas (defendant No.3) were inoperative and ineffective as against him. In defence, the defendants, who are respondents in this Court, disputed the claim of the plaintiff by urging that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Purroo and he was not a benami owner of the same. Purroo on his part transferred the property by executing a gift deed (Ex. D-1) dated 16-3-1952 in favour of his daughter Mst. Chaitibai. Subsequent to that her husband Prabhu (defendant No.2) acting as guardian of his son Baboolal (defendant No.1) executed a sale deed on behalf of Baboolal (defendant No. 1) in favour of Ramdas (defendant No.3) of the suit lands. The sale-deed is (Ex.D-3) dated 30-5-1957. It was also urged that the plaintiff had knowledge of the gift-deed (Ex. D-1) and he himself had purchased two khasra numbers, 55/2 and 178/2 out of the suit property from Mst. Chaitibai vide sale deed dated 20-6-1956 (Ex.D-2) and had accepted the said gift deed which included all the Khasra numbers in the suit and executed by Purroo in favour of his daughter Chaitibai. According to the defendants the transfer of the suit property in favour of Ramdas (Defendant No.3) was valid and the plaintiff had no right or title in any manner over the suit property. The case at an earlier stage had been upto this Court but it was remanded for giving an opportunity to the parties to specifically plead their respective cases and as such the parties are before this Court in the second innings. The case at an earlier stage had been upto this Court but it was remanded for giving an opportunity to the parties to specifically plead their respective cases and as such the parties are before this Court in the second innings. Held: Having heard learned counsel of the parties. I am of opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and it must be dismissed. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel challenging the finding arrived at by the Courts below regarding benami transaction. I am of opinion that it has no force. The plaintiff had a second opportunity after remand of the case to adduce evidence in support of his plea as the trial was de novo. On a perusal of the evidence of record, I find that he has completely failed to prove his case. It is clear from the evidence on record that his plea that he had purchased the suit property banami in the name of his brother Purroo stands belied by a perusal of the Patta (Ex. D-2) of the suit lands filed by him. If his plea that the suit property was purchased benami in the name of his brother Purroo as alleged by him, was correct, then in the Patta (Ex. P-2) the name of his brother would have found place and not of his own. The strongest point that goes against the plaintiff with regard to his plea is that he had himself purchased the two Khasra numbers 55/2 and 178/2 out of the suit lands which he alleged to have purchased from the daughter of his brother Purroo vide sale-deed (Ex.D-27). If he was the owner of the suit lands it does not stand to reason that he would have purchased a part of that property from Mst. Chaitibai. The sale in favour of Ramdas (defendant No.3) was subsequent to the purchase of property by the plaintiff from Mst. Chaitibai. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property was his self-acquired property was in any manner unwarranted. That apart, the finding being a concurrent finding of fact is binding in second appeal. I, therefore, hold that the suit property was not the self-acquired property of the plaintiff. That apart, the finding being a concurrent finding of fact is binding in second appeal. I, therefore, hold that the suit property was not the self-acquired property of the plaintiff. As regards the other contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff about the alternative plea, which has also been rejected by the Courts below, that in the absence of non-framing of an issue in that regard the plaintiff was prejudiced, has no merit. It is well settled rule that the plaintiff must plead his case specifically in the plaint itself, if he wants to claim any relief on that basis A mere mention in the prayer clause cannot be deemed sufficient for purposes of raising a plea in the plaint as is evident in the instant case. Both the Courts below have clearly held that the pleadings were completely lacking with regard to the alternative plea that the suit property be declared a joint family property. On a perusal of the plaint I also find that the plaintiff did not plead that aspect of his case in his pleadings. In the absence of the pleadings no issue was required to be framed by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court has even dealt with this aspect on merits in para 16 of its judgment which, in my opinion was not necessary in the absence of the pleadings and as such no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the plaintiff by non-framing of an issue. Realising this difficulty, learned counsel for the plaintiff orally urged that he may be permitted to amend the plaint at this stage. This battle of litigation over this suit property has been going on since 1958 and it is already nearly 18 years. If the plaintiff had not been vigilant inspite of the remand of the case by this Court to correct his pleadings, he has to thank himself and this Court will not extend its hands in allowing such a belated amendment of the plaint at this second appellate stage. The contention is accordingly rejected. Appeal dismissed.