Honble BALIA, J.—This is a defendants second appeal who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below. (2) Brief facts giving rise to the second appeal may be stated. Smt. Ghisi Bai wife of Ghisa Lal filed a suit against the present appellant Mohan Lal on 5.3.1986, on the averments that the plot in question belongs to her husband Ghisalal as an allottee of State Government in 1975. During her husbands absence, she was in possession of and looking after the plot in question. According to the plaint allegation on 2.03.1986, the defendant has started digging foundation from east to west and has constructed about 6 feet wall on the eastern side of plot and she is apprehending that by completing the construction, the defendant wants to include the plot in boundary of his house and deprive the plaintiff of its possession. For the present purpose, para 3 of the plaints and the relief claimed by plaintiffs is hereby reproduced below: ^^;g gS fd izfrokn okn i= ds pj.k ua- 2 nksesa of.kZr Hkw[k.M ij vukf/k—r vfrØe.k djus dh uh;r ls bl Hkw[k.M esa fnukad 2-3-1986 dks iwoZ o ifpe fnkk dh uhosa [kksn yh gS rFkk iwoZ fnkk dh vksj djhc N% QqV Å¡ph iDdh fnokj cuk nh ,oa lM+d dh vksj ifpe fnkk esa fnokj fuekZ.k dke rsth ls izkjEHk dj j[kk gSA okfn;k }kjk izfroknh dks ekSds ij euk djus ij Hkh ugha ekudj rqjUr nksuksa rjQ dh fnokjsa iw.kZ dj mu ij ifÍ;ksa Mky dj vius ioZ esa cus Hkou ds l[ksys esa cukdj rS;kj dj ysuk pkgrk gS vr% izfroknh ds fo:) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk loZdkyhu bl vkk; dh fn;k tkuk vkod gS ckn esa pj.k ua- 2 esa of.kZr okfn;k ds ifr ds vkoklh; Hkw[k.M ij fdlh izdkj fuekZ.k ugha djs u djkosA okfn;k ds fgrksa dh j{kkFkZ mä LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh fd;k tkuk vko;d gS vU;Fkk okfn;ka ds fgrksa dh vikj gkfu gksxh ftldk ewY;kadu fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gS rFkk okfn;k¡ ,oa mlds ifr dks iqu% dCtk izkIr djus esa Hkkjh dfBukbZ gksxh ,oa vkxs eqdíesa ckth esa my>uk iM+sxkA (3) The defendant denied that the plot belongs to Ghasi Lal and claimed his own ownership and possession. The trial court found that the plot in question belongs to plaintiffs husband and plaintiff continued to be in possession of it, under issue No.1. Issue no. The trial court found that the plot in question belongs to plaintiffs husband and plaintiff continued to be in possession of it, under issue No.1. Issue no. 3 relating to the defendants ownership and his continued possession was decided against him. (4) The defendant raised a plea that plaintiff was dispossessed before filing of the suit hence suit for mere injunction was not maintainable. The trial court held that in para (1) (B) of the relief, the plaintiff has claimed possession and therefore, this plea of the defendant is not acceptable. The trial court was also of the view that separate relief for possession was not necessary where the plaintiff was dispossessed during pendency of suit and in that event court had power to grant relief for possession. (5) The another contention which was raised before the trial court by the defendant was that the suit property belongs to husband of the plaintiff and plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit in her own name. This issue was also decided against the defendant and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and decree for possession and injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. (6) Aggrieved with the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 19.5.1988, the defendant preferred appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Bhilwara. Before the appellate court, the finding about the fact that the defendant has tress-passed over the plot in dispute and raised construction over it , was not disputed. However, the defendant raised the same contentions before the First Appellate Court that suit for injunction could not have been maintained in absence of a relief for possession and that suit in the name of Ghisi Bai was not maintainable when the title of the property vested in her husband. On both the contentions the findings of the trial court were affirmed and appeal was dismissed. The decree passed by the trial court was maintained. (7) Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, defendant has preferred this second appeal. This Court issued a show cause notice, why the appeal be not admitted and allowed. This is how, this appeal has come up for final disposal today. (8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The decree passed by the trial court was maintained. (7) Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, defendant has preferred this second appeal. This Court issued a show cause notice, why the appeal be not admitted and allowed. This is how, this appeal has come up for final disposal today. (8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. (9) Learned counsel for the appellant in the first instance, raised the contention that from the reading of the plaint it is apparent, that plaintiff was dispossessed at least to the extent, the foundation was dug and wall was constructed on the eastern side of the plot on the date of filing of the suit and therefore, in the absence of any prayer for possession no suit could have been filed for mere injunction. (10) Having carefully read the plaint I do not find any error in this conclusion of the courts below that relief 1 (B) is to be construed as prayer for the possession. From the pleading of the prayer-clause it appears that relief in respect of any change during pendency of suit has been claimed in para C of the relief and relief claimed in para B be construed in the light of the pleadings as an alternative plea that if the defendant is to be found in possession of any part of the property in dispute a decree for possession may also be passed. Para no. 3 of the plaint can be read only as a pleading to the effect that defendant was in the process of dispossessing the plaintiff by his acts, but the dispossession was not complete. In that view of the matter in my opinion courts below did not commit any error in their conclusion. (11) Even assuming that both the courts below were in error in coming to the conclusion that defendant has dispossessed the plaintiff only during the pendency of the suit by not taking into consideration the pleadings of para 3 of the plaint, still it does not alter the situation and does not affect maintain ability of the suit, on the ground raised before me and it does not affect the ultimate decision, as I have found that relief for possession exist in the plaint. (12) Coming to the second contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly when the suit property belongs to Ghisa Lal, the present suit could not have been filed by Smt. Ghisi Bai for injunction and possession. This plea of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted. As has been noticed above, the act of dispossession was alleged to have taken place on 2nd March 1986 and within 3 days present suit was filed for injunction and possession on 5th March 1986, while the act of dispossession was not still complete and construction was still going on. In that even a suit for possession and injunction could have been filed by a person who was in actual physical possession of the property without reference to the title under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It has been found as a fact that plaintiff was in physical possession of the property. In that view of the matter, this fact alone that the suit was not filed in the name of the owner, also does not affect the maintainability of the suit and the nature of relief that could have been granted. (13) No grounds for interference in second appeal is made out. (14) Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.