JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the order dated June 1, 1972 passed by the Additional Commissioner Allahabad Division Allahabad in appeal No. 136/188 Kanpur. 2. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The appellant Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur had filed a suit seeking declaration as the defendant respondent Sita Ram was not a Sirdar of plot No. 1593 and 1609 in village Budhpur Machhariya and also praying for his ejectment as a trespasser. The defendant respondent contested the suit by claiming to be Sirdar of the land on the basis of a lease dated December 30, 1959 granted in his favour by the Land Management Committee. The courts below have ordered the ejectment of the defendant respondent from plot No. 1609 but dismissed the suit in respect of 1593 only. Nagar Mahapalika has come up in second appeal. 3. The grounds taken in the second appeal are that the courts below erred in law in drawing presumption of possession against the appellant on the basis of illegal entry of Khasra 1364 F. secondly that the defendant respondent having pleaded that he came in possession on the basis of allotment found illegal by the courts below his possession if any was only permissive and he was liable to ejectment thirdly that the defendant having not pleaded to have acquired rights by adverse possession the courts below have erred in making out a new case, lastly the courts below have misread the statement of the Lekhpal. 4. A perusal of the judgments of the courts below instead shows that they have been more interested in making out a new case for the defendant respondents rather than in deciding the case as pleaded by the parties. The case of the Nagar Mahapalika was that the Patta if any granted in favour of the defendant respondent was fictitious and Ferzi and that the defendant respondent was a trespasser. The case of the defendant respondent on the other hand,was that he was a Sirdar on the basis of the valid lease granted by the Land Management Committee. It was no body's case that the defendant respondent had acquired rights by adverse possession yet both the courts below have not considered the Patta at all and have not given any finding on the Patta. It was no body's case that the defendant respondent had acquired rights by adverse possession yet both the courts below have not considered the Patta at all and have not given any finding on the Patta. On the other hand they have mad out a new case to the effect that the defendant respondent had acquired Sirdari rights by adverse possession on plot No. 1593 but had failed to do so on plot No. 1609. A court is not permitted to make out a new case for the parties but is required to decide the question in controversy on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Thus, the judgments of the courts below are illegal. 5. The result is that I allow the second appeal set aside the judgment (sic) the courts below and remand the case to the trial court for decision afresh in accordance with the law in the light of the above observations.