M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the lower appellate court and the trial court. In the course of this judgment, the parties will be referred to by the ranks assigned to them in the trial court. ( 2 ) THE respondent-plaintiff approached the court of the munsiff, virajpet, in o. s. No. 7 of 1983 seeking inter alia the following reliefs: (i) that he be declared the owner of s. No. 138/4 of konageri village in virajpet taluk; and (ii) that the defendant be directed to deliver possession of b schedule property measuring 1. 15 acres which had been encroached by him in s. No. 138/4. The defendant resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that s. No. 138/4 in its entirety did not belong to the plaintiff. He also denied that the land in the said survey number had been inherited by the plaintiff from his father. He denied that he encroached upon the land of the plaintiff. It may be noticed at this stage that the plaintiff had left his land uncultivated for a long time and on discovering encroachment had orally requested the defendant to vacate the encroached land. The defendant having failed to do so, the plaintiff got issued a lawyer's notice and thereafter filed the suit with the reliefs set out above. ( 3 ) ON such pleadings the trial court framed as many as six issues and one additional issue. They are as follows: 1) whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner and is in possession of plaint 'a' and 'b' schedule properties? 2) whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has encroached upon 1. 15 acres of land of plaintiff in sy. No. 138/4? 3) whether the defendant proves that he has prefected his title to the suit 'b' schedule property by adverse possession? 4) whether the defendant proves that he has made improvement in 'b' schedule property worth Rs. 40,000/- and the plaintiff is liable to pay the same? 5) whether the suit valuation is correct and court-fee paid adequate? 6) whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit? Addl. Issue: whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property was inherited from his father? ( 4 ) ON issue No. 1 and on the additional issue he held in the affirmative. 5) whether the suit valuation is correct and court-fee paid adequate? 6) whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit? Addl. Issue: whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property was inherited from his father? ( 4 ) ON issue No. 1 and on the additional issue he held in the affirmative. On issue No. 2 he held against the plaintiff. On issue No. 3 he held against the defendant. On issue No. 4 he found that defcndant-1 had made improvements on the suit schedule b property, the encroached area. In the result, the suit came to be decreed in the following terms: that the plaintiff was declared the owner of suit schedule a property i. e. the land comprised in sy. No. 138/4 and the defendant was directed to vacate and deliver possession of b schedule property to the plaintiff, but there was no order as to costs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant preferred r. a. No. 3 of 1987 in the court of the civil judge at madikere. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the arguments in the appeal, the court reserved the appeal for judgment. The appeal was posted for judgment on 26-7-1989. After considering the evidence on record, particularly the entries in ex. D-2, it was found that there was a glaring error in describing the area of sy. No. 138/4 and sy. No. 138/2. Therefore, the appeal was posted for further arguments. Thereafter, the defendant filed i. a. 2 praying for permission to amend his written statement. He sought to insert that at the partition his ancestor was allotted 2. 50 acres of land and the plaintiffs ancestor was allotted 3. 89 acres of land in sy. No. 138/4. Similarly, the plaintiff filed la. 3 seeking amendment of the plaint to the effect that the area of sy. No. 138/4 should be described as measuring 4. 89 acres instead of 3. 89 acres and correspondingly sy. No. 138/2 should be described as measuring 1. 50 acres instead of 2. 50 acres. I. a. ii came to be dismissed while la. Iii came to be allowed. On other aspects of the case the lower appellate court concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court and for the same reasons affirmed the judgment and decree subject to the modification in the extent allowed by it. 50 acres instead of 2. 50 acres. I. a. ii came to be dismissed while la. Iii came to be allowed. On other aspects of the case the lower appellate court concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court and for the same reasons affirmed the judgment and decree subject to the modification in the extent allowed by it. Against the judgments and decrees of the lower appellate court and the trial court, this second appeal is preferred. ( 6 ) IN this court Mr. R. v. naik, appearing for Sri u. l. narayana rao, learned Advocate for the appellant, has contended that the lower appellate court erred in permitting the amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage. That argument should be noticed only to be rejected. Order 6, Rule 17 of the C. P. C. is clear and it permits amendment to the pleadings by either parties to the proceedings at any stage. Appeal is but continuation of the suit and therefore, 'the proceedings' within the meaning of that expression under order 6, Rule 17 of the C. P. C. hence, there was no error of law or jurisdiction committed by the lower appellate court in permitting amendment. When the defendant first moved the court for amendment, he cannot now be permitted to contend that the appellate court had no power to amend the pleadings. ( 7 ) IT was next urged that by the amendment, the lower appellate court has enlarged the relief granted by the trial court, which is impermissible. For that proposition he relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of raglmnath v kedamalh, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1316. Considering the scope of order 41, Rule 33 of the c. p. c. , the Supreme Court, on the facts of that case, held that the high court was in error in remanding the case to the trial court directing the trial court to call upon the defendants to render fresh accounts. The facts of that case briefly stated are as follows: the plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage and that suit came to be decreed. On appeal by the defendants, the court of the district judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed a second appeal to the high court. On appeal by the defendants, the court of the district judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed a second appeal to the high court. In the second appeal, the high court remanded the matter to the lower appellate court directing to try an additional issue. On that additional issue, the lower appellate court found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by that finding the defendants filed an appeal to the high court. In the high court the appeal came to be dismissed, but, however, it remanded the matter to the trial court to seek further accounts from the mortgagee-defendants. It was the last direction which came to be attacked in the Supreme Court and rightly the Supreme Court held that the high court could not have granted that relief, as the appellate court had enlarged the relief which had not been claimed by the plaintiff. The facts of that case have no application to the facts of the present case. Here there is no enlargement of the relief. The encroached area in b schedule property remains the same and that has to be vacated even after the lower appellate court's judgment. In fact the amendment came to be allowed on the evidence on record which included, a surveyor appointed by the defendant to survey the two survey numbers in question and who was examined as a tness. In his report and in his deposition, he stat :d that survey No. 138/4 measured 4. 89 acres and sy. No. 138/2 measured 1. 65 acres. Notwithstanding the fact that 1910 jamabandhi extract giving a different measurement, the evidence of the commissioner came to be believed. Therefore, i do not see any force in the contentions urgcc1 by the learned counsel. No question of law, muchlcss substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Even if the contention of Mr. Naik, is to be considered as substantial question of law, it has no application to the facts of the present case. The appeal is rejected. Appeal rejected. --- *** --- .