Short Note : This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a strip of land measuring 80' East-west by 18' north-south, shown as AB EF in the plaint map. The plaintiff claims that the defendant encroached upon this strip of land measuring 80'x18' in the month of May 1964. The suit was accordingly filed for recovery of its possession on the ground of plaintiff's title. 2. The plaintiff’s case is that he purchased four plots of land together measuring 80' 'east-west by 160' north-south, having the plot of Durgaprasad (P.W.1) towards its south and roads on the remaining three sides. This purchase was made by him by a registered sale-deed Ex.P-1 dated 24-4-1948. According to the plaintiff's, the encroachment has been made by the defendant in the plaintiff's plot measuring 18' north-south towards the northern end of the plaintiff's plot so purchased, measuring in all 160' north-south. The defendant has admittedly purchased the plot of land towards the north of plaintiff's plot measuring 80'x80'. The allegation is that the defendant has extended his plot towards the south of his own plot by encroaching 10' north-south into plaintiff's aforesaid plot. 3. The defendant denied having made any such encroachment and set up his own title to the portion shown as encroachment by the plaintiff. 4. The trial Court held on the evidence present including that adduced by the plaintiff himself that the plaintiff was admittedly in possession of a plot of land measuring at least 160' north-south; which dimension alone is in dispute, towards the south of the portion marked ABEF in the plaint map shown as the encroachment extending upto Durga Prasad's plot. On this conclusion it was obvious that no encroachment by the defendant in the plaintiff's land was proved and the suit was accordingly dismissed. 5. The first appellate Court has reversed the trial Court's decree and decreed the suit on a ground which is outside the pleadings. It has held that there is a conflict between the boundaries and the dimensions shown in the sale deed Ex.P-1 on account of which the boundaries must prevail, according to which the portion shown as A B E F in the plain map is an encroachment made by the defendant into the plaintiff's land. On this reasoning; the suit has been decreed. On this reasoning; the suit has been decreed. Held : Shri A.R. Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant, argues that the first appellate Court has found a case for the plaintiff which is outside the pleadings and that the plaintiff's case must fail on the facts found and no longer in controversy. Shri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent has tried to support the first appellate Court's decree on the same reason which was adopted by that Court for decreeing the suit. I have no doubt that Shri Choubey's argument must be accepted. 6. The aforesaid reason which prevailed with the first appellate Court assumes that there is a conflict in the boundaries and the dimensions shown in the sale-deed Ex.P-1 and that according to the plaintiff he had purchased a larger plot than the one shown therein measuring 80' x 160'. This has never been the plaintiff's case. It was expressly stated in the plaint that the dimension of the entire plot purchased by the plaintiff under sale-deed Ex.P-1 was 80’ 'east-west by 160 north south; its total area was 12800 sq.ft. and for its boundaries, towards the south was the plot of Durgaprasad and roads on the remaining three sides. There is no suggestion any where in the plaint that the plot so purchased by the plaintiff and bounded in this manner had larger dimensions than 80' x 160' or a larger area than 12800 sq.ft, shown in the sale-deed. In fact, the plaintiff’s case even at the trial was the same and he never claimed ownership of a plot larger than 80'x160' or in area more than 12810 sq.ft.. By the sale-deed Ex.D-l dated 25-3-1966 the plaintiff sold the southern portion of this plot adjacent of Durgaprasad's plot measuring 80' ‘east-west by 40’ north-south to D.W.1 Basantibai. In that sale-deed also the same dimensions of plaintiff's plot have been repeated and the southern boundary is once again shown as the plot of Durgaprasad. Admittedly, the alleged encroachment shown as A B E F in the plaint map is beyond the length of 160' towards the north of Durgaprasad's plot, which means that if the dimensions of the plaintiffs plot north-south was only 160’, towards the north of Durgaprasads plot, then the portion shown as A B E F is definitely not within the plaintiff's plot. The measurements are plot in dispute and are proved even by the plaintiff's witness P.W.4 Laxmi Narayan and Commissioner's map Ex.P-12. It has never been the plaintiff’s case that the dimension of his plot purchased under the sale deed Ex.P-1 was in excess of 160' towards north from Durgaprasads plot. The alleged encroachment being definitely outside that area, the plaintiff is bound to fail for this reason alone as held by the trial Court. Suit dismissed. Appeal allowed.