JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a defendants' second appeal against judgment and decree dated 26-11-1973 passed by Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, dismissing the appeal of the defendant and further decreeing plaintiff's suit for possession against Sannoo Prasad against judgment and decree dated 24-3-1973 passed by Judicial Officer (Revenue)/Assistant Collector 1st Class Sultanpur decreeing the plaintiff's suit to be co-sirdar of the disputed plot with defendant no. 4. 2. Plaintiff-respondent Smt. Azima had filed the suit for declaration under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951 after the death of her husband Bahadur to be co-sirdar with defendant Lal Mohammad alleging that defendant No. 1 Sannoo had got no concern. 3. The suit was contested by defendant-appellant Sannoo although he and Lal Mohammad, defendant no. 4, had filed a joint written statement alleging that the plaintiff was divorced by Bahadur and she was not heir of Bahadur, that Bahadur had gifted his property to Sannoo who was ordered to be recorded with defendant no. 4. 4. I have heard the Id. counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. 5. The concurrent findings of both the courts below that the plaintiff was not divorced by Bahadur and she was heir of Bahadur cannot be challenged in the second appeal and they are hereby confirmed. 6. The arguments on behalf of the appellant that Collector, Sultanpur was not made a party, therefore, the suit was defective did not find favour with the courts below as local authority was impleaded and it was never pleaded specifically that the board was under the management of the Collector, hence this point has been determined conclusively by the courts below and cannot be interfered in second appeal. 7. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the defendant no. 1 was found to be in possession rightly by the first appellate court but the lower appellate court proceeded illegally in decreeing the plaintiff's suit also for possession when no relief for possession was sought and the suit being barred by section 34 (old section 42) of the Specific Relief Act. 1 was found to be in possession rightly by the first appellate court but the lower appellate court proceeded illegally in decreeing the plaintiff's suit also for possession when no relief for possession was sought and the suit being barred by section 34 (old section 42) of the Specific Relief Act. The suit ought to have been dismissed and the appeal should have been allowed but the first appellate court proceeded illegally to decree the suit for possession also and converting the suit for mere declaration under section 229-B of Act I of 1951 to a suit also under section 209 of Act I of 1951. Reliance has been placed on 1. 1972 R.D. 251 (SC), 2. AIR 196.1 Pun. 102, 3. AIR (?) All. 383, 4. AIR 1929 All. 974, 5. AIR 1938 Lahore 369, 6. AIR 1958 Manipur 38 and 7. AIR 1933 All. 958 . 8. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff that the plaintiff-has filed suit under section 229-B for declaration of her rights but she had claimed 'any other relief which was deemed proper' which covers the relief for possession and the ruling reported in 1972 R.D. 351 (S.C.) is distinguishable because any other relief except relief for possession was not sought in that case and all the other rulings relied upon on behalf of the appellant are, therefore, not applicable. Reliance has been placed on 8. AIR 1958 Allahabad 371, 9. AIR 1946 Allahabad 362 and 10. AIR 1938 Allahabad 242. 9. I have carefully gone through all the above mentioned rulings relied upon by both the parties. The rulings nos. 1 to 7 relied upon on behalf of the appellant clearly lay down that a mere suit for declaration without seeking further relief for possession is not maintainable and is barred by (old section 42) of the Specific Relief Act now section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Rulings Nos. 8 and 9 are not applicable to the facts of the present case as declaration was given in them that the plaintiff-and defendant were co-shebait or joint trustees. Here in this case no declaration has been given of being co-tenant with contesting defendant no. 1. Ruling No. 10 is also not applicable because it is not the case that the plaintiff obtaining such possession as can be obtained under circumstances of the case. Here in this case no declaration has been given of being co-tenant with contesting defendant no. 1. Ruling No. 10 is also not applicable because it is not the case that the plaintiff obtaining such possession as can be obtained under circumstances of the case. Here it is clear cut case that the defendant no. 1 is in possession. 10. No clear cut ruling has been cited on the point as to whether "any other relief deemed proper" includes further consequential relief for possession or not but in my considered opinion "any other relief deemed proper" does not include further consequential relief for possession as required by the proviso of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, (old section 42 of Specific Relief Act). Further consequential relief for possession should be pleaded specifically without any ambiguity and it is not included in the phrase "any other relief deemed proper". There was no specific plea of further relief for possession against defendant No. 1 even in the alternative in para 6 for relief it was only pleaded that any other relief deemed proper by court be granted. Such a plea does not amount to further consequential relief for possession and without such specific consequential relief for possession the suit will be barred by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, therefore, the first appellate court acted illegally in granting relief for possession also without any such relief having been sought. The appeal ought to have been dismissed and the plaintiff's suit also ought to have been dismissed by the courts below being barred by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, therefore, this appeal is liable to be allowed and the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are liable to be set aside. 11. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed with costs and the judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court are hereby set aside and the plaintiff's suit stands dismissed with costs being barred by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.