JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - This is a second appeal by the defendants appellants against the judgment and decree dated 2.6.1975 of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Deoria. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for mandatory injunction that the defendants of first and second sets be directed to remove constructions shown by letters A B C D in the plaint map. It was pleaded in para 5 of the plaint that a dispute arose in the year 1950 as to who was the heir of Tamkuhi Estate and then a suit was filed which resulted into a compromise decree passed in 1958 which is Ext. 20. It was pleaded that the plaintiff derived title in respect of the suit land admeasuring .85 acre situated in plot no. 331 from the compromise decree. In para 6 of the plaint, it was pleaded that the plaintiff remained owner in possession of the suit land since the compromise decree was passed. He, therefore claimed mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the construction, which they raised on part of the suit land. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that the suit land admeasuring 80 acre situated in plot no. 331 was settled with the plaintiff under Section 9 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. 3. The claim of the defendants was that Tamkuhi Estate remained under the charge of the Court of Ward for some time and then they acquired a piece of land on which the disputed constructions were raised from the Court of Ward. They denied title and possession of the plaintiff over the piece of land on which the suit constructions are situated. 4. The Courts below accepted the contention of the plaintiff that the suit land admeasuring .85 acre was settled with him under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. It was also held that the plaintiff acquired the suit land under the compromise decree Ext. 20. As the compromise decree Ext. 20 conferred right on the plaintiff only in respect of .18 acre area of plot no. 331, the courts below took the view that the area was not correctly recorded in the compromise and that the entire suit land was given to the plaintiff under the compromise. 5. Aggrieved the defendants filed a second appeal. As the compromise decree Ext. 20 conferred right on the plaintiff only in respect of .18 acre area of plot no. 331, the courts below took the view that the area was not correctly recorded in the compromise and that the entire suit land was given to the plaintiff under the compromise. 5. Aggrieved the defendants filed a second appeal. Sri G.N. Verma, learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the conclusion of the courts below that the suit land was settled with the plaintiff under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and that there was an error in recording the area of plot no. 331 in the compromise and that the entire suit land was given under the compromise to the plaintiff, was erroneous. 6. The question for consideration is whether the courts below, were justified in holding that the area of .18 acre was wrongly recorded in the compromise and that pertained to the entire suit land admeasuring 85 acre. From the perusal of the plaint, it is manifest that the plaintiff derives title from the compromise decree Ext. 20 that shows that only . 18 acre area of plot no. 331 was given to the plaintiff. Can the plaintiff derive title on the basis of the compromise decree for the area in excess of .18 acre? This can be done only when the plaintiff proves that in fact he acquired .85 acre of area of plot no. 331 under the compromise decree but somehow .18 acre area was wrongly recorded in the compromise against plot no. 331. There is nothing on record to show that 85 acre of plot no. 331 was ever given to the plaintiff. Cardinal principle of law is that the apparent state is the real state of affairs unless proved otherwise. The compromise decree of the year 1958 clearly shows that the area to the extent of 18 acre in plot no. 331 was given to the plaintiff. It is for the plaintiff to show that this entry is wrong and the correct entry should have been in respect of 85 acre of plot no. 331. The basis to claim .85 acre in plot no. 331 is not shown nor has it been pleaded in the plaint. The only case set up in the plaint is that the plaintiff acquired certain area of plot no. 331. The basis to claim .85 acre in plot no. 331 is not shown nor has it been pleaded in the plaint. The only case set up in the plaint is that the plaintiff acquired certain area of plot no. 331 under the compromise decree. The compromise only refers to 18 acre of plot no. 331. It was for the plaintiff to set up a clear casein the plaint as to how did he become the owner of the area .85 acre minus 18 acre. No claim regarding the difference of the two areas has been set up in the plaint. The plaintiff cannot derive title under the compromise in respect of the area in excess to .18 acre. There being no case in the plaint that the area was wrongly recorded in the compromise of plot no. 331 and that in fact he was given .85 acre area of plot no. 331 under the compromise, the courts below were not justified to make out a case that there was an error in regard to the area of plot no. 331 in the compromise and that the plaintiff was given much more area than 18 acre by the compromise. This case is foreign to the plaint allegations. 7. The onus was on the plaintiff to prove that he acquired 85 acre in plot no. 331 under the compromise decree as back as 1958. This onus has not at all been discharged, nor such plea has been raised in the plaint. 8. Then the question is whether the courts below were right in accepting the oral evidence of the plaintiff that he remained in possession over the entire suit land and that settled with the plaintiff under Section 9 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. This oral evidence is wholly contrary to the document, which is the basis of the plaintiff's case. The compromise decree which is the foundation of the plaintiff's case can utmost confer the right on the plaintiff to the extent of 18 acre of plot no. 331 and not more. The oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff should have been seen in the light of the documentary evidence. The compromise decree which is the foundation of the plaintiff's case can utmost confer the right on the plaintiff to the extent of 18 acre of plot no. 331 and not more. The oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff should have been seen in the light of the documentary evidence. The compromise decree was passed in the year 1958 i.e. much after the date of vesting and that decree having pertained to much lesser area, the question of the entire suit land being settled with the plaintiff under Section 9 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, does not arise. Thus the approach of the courts below was wholly erroneous and the conclusion arrived at by them cannot be sustained. 9. A reference was also made to clause 13 of the compromise. It says that if there being any property of the late Raja Indrajit Pratap Bahadur Shahi or any part of the suit property which by inheritence or otherwise has been omitted to be dealt with specifically by the specific terms of the petition for compromise, then in respect of such property the share of the appellant shall be -/8/- and that of the first respondent -/8/-. Admittedly, the plot No. 331 was not in dispute which ended into compromise decree in 1958. Then the question is whether the area of the suit land in excess to. 18 acre in plot no. 331 belonged to the late Raja Indrajit Pratap Bahadur Shahi and whether that could have been acquired by the plaintiff under the residuary clause 13 of the compromise. The said Raja died in the year 1947 and there is no pleadings in the plaint that at the time of compromise the extra area continued with the late Raja Indrajit Pratap Bahadur Shahi. Therefore, the extra area cannot be claimed to have been settled with the plaintiff under clause 13 of the compromise. 10. The suit land being much in excess to the area,which was acquired by the plaintiff under the compromise decree, it was for the plaintiff to prove that the disputed constructions are situated in the area given to the plaintiff under the compromise decree. The identity of the suit constructions and the area. 18 acre has not been established. For the reasons, I hold that the courts below were not right in accepting the case of the plaintiff. 11. The identity of the suit constructions and the area. 18 acre has not been established. For the reasons, I hold that the courts below were not right in accepting the case of the plaintiff. 11. Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon Nagubai Ammal & others v. B. Shama Rao & others (A.I.R 1956 S.C. 593). It was held by the Supreme Court in the said case that although no specific plea that the sale in favour of the defendants was effected by the doctrine of lis pendens was raised in pleading of the plaintiff and no specific issue was directed to that question the defendants went to trial with full knowledge that the question of lis pendens was in issue, had ample opportunity to adduce their evidence thereon, and fully availed themselves of the same. This authority can be availed of only when the question on which no specific plea was raised and no issue was framed, was fully within the knowledge of the parties before going into trial. In the instant case, the parties to the suit could not be said to have the prior knowledge of the fact that an issue emerged during trial that there was an error in regard to the area of plot no. 331 in the compromise and that the compromise in fact, pertained to .85 acre of plot no. 331. Simple pleading of the plaintiff was that he became the owner in possession of the suit land under the compromise decree. From this case, no inference can be drawn that the defendants would have had full knowledge of the fact that the plaintiff would raise the issue that area of plot no. 331 was wrongly recorded in the compromise and in fact that referred to the entire area of the suit land. Therefore, nothing turns upon this authority. 12. The document forming basis of the plaintiff's case plainly runs counter to the oral evidence of the plaintiff and that should not have been believed by the courts below to accept the case of the plaintiff. 13. For the reasons the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs throughout.