B. S. SREENIVASA RAO, J. ( 1 ) - This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional civil Judge, Gulbarga in R. A. No. 93/1986 dated 23. 6. 1994 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Chincholi in q. S. No. 67/1984 -dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent. ( 3 ) FOR convenience sake, the appellant is referred to as the plaintiff and the respondent as the defendant. ( 4 ) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit with respect to the suit land measuring 3 acres 27 guntas being Southern portion in Survey No. 258 which measures 24 acres 9 guntas of Ainapur village, chincholi Taluk shown in the suit sketch for declaration' of title and for permanent injunction. ( 5 ) THE defendant in his written statement denied the title of the plaintiff as well as the possession of the plaintiff and on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were raised by the trial Court: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves his ownership and lawful possession over the suit land measuring 3 acres 27 guntas as on the date of suit? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged obstruction of his use and enjoyment over the suit land by defendant? (3) Whether the defendant proves that she has become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession by claiming prescriptive right over the same? (4) Whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad for non-joining of necessary parties (5) Whether the defendant proves that the valuatipn for the purpose of court fee is incorrect and as such court fee paid is insufficient? (6) Whether the defendant proves that market value of the. suit land is more than Rs. 10,000/- and'as such this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit? (7) Whether the defendant proves that she is entitled for compensatory costs of Rs. 1000/- from plaintiff? (8) To what reliefs the parties are entitled for? (9) What order and decree? additional Issues : (1) Whether the defendant proves that the suit area has fallen to the share of her husband's ancestors in the partition? (2) Whether the defendant proves that suit of the plaintiff is barred by time? 1000/- from plaintiff? (8) To what reliefs the parties are entitled for? (9) What order and decree? additional Issues : (1) Whether the defendant proves that the suit area has fallen to the share of her husband's ancestors in the partition? (2) Whether the defendant proves that suit of the plaintiff is barred by time? ( 6 ) AFTER contest, leading evidence on both sides, both oral and documentary, the learne'd Munsiff answered the issue, with respect to the ownership of the plaintiff, in the affirmative and also with respect to obstruction, in the negative and negatived the contention of adverse possession also. The learned munsiff also answered the- issue regarding possession of the plaintiff on the date of the suit, in the negative and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in part declaring that the plaintiff as the owner of the suit land measuring 3 acres 27 guntas, the southern portion in Sy. No. 258 of Ainapur Village in Chincholi Taluk and dismissed the suit for injunction, ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree, the defendant filed the appeal in R. A. No. 93/1986. During the pendency of the appeal; the plaintiff/respondent made an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint for amending the relief column as an alternative remedy for possession with respect to the suit schedule property which was resisted by the defendant/respondent and the learned Addl. Civil judge allowed the amendment and accordingly, the plaint was amended for the relief of possession and the defendant also filed additional written statement. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the arguments, the learned civil Judge allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and possession. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. During the course of the judgment, the, learned Civil Judge has formulated the following points : (1) Whether the matter in its entirety is liable to be remanded back by framing additional issues pertaining to recovery of possession and mesne profits by setting aside the entire judgment and decree or only the additional issues alone are to be referred to trial Court to give its finding? (2) In the event of holding that there is no necessity to do either, whether respondent/plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of possession of suit land in view of amendment of plaint? (3) Whether the plaintiff has proved. his title to suit land? (4) Whether the defendant has proved acquisition of title by adverse possession? (5) Whether the plaintiff could be awarded only decree of declaration of title, when he was not having lawful possession on the date of suit and there was no prayer for. recovery of possession? (6) What Order? ( 10 ) SO far as the first point is concerned, the learned Civil Judge, during the course of the order, has observed that there is no necessity either to remand the entire suit for setting aside the judgment and decree or refer the same for finding by the trial Court. It has also been observed that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to remand the case or to frame additional issues as the evidence placed on record was sufficient enough to decide the matter between the parties. The learned Civil Judge answering point No. 5 observed that the plaintiff would not have been given the declaration of title and possession as the suit of the plaintiff was not one for possession on the. date of the suit and dismissed the entire suit. During the course opthe discussion, it has been observed that the relief of possession was claimed by way of amendment in the appeal by the plaintiff/respondent. It has also been stated that the plaintiff was. not at all in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit. In that view of the matter, the question arises as to whether the plaintiff could maintain a declaratory- suit for mere declaration of title without seeking consequential relief. of recovery of possession which was very much available and could be sought on the date of the suit. It is stated that it is settled law that mere suit for declaration is not maintainable without seeking consequential relief available to the party in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. of recovery of possession which was very much available and could be sought on the date of the suit. It is stated that it is settled law that mere suit for declaration is not maintainable without seeking consequential relief available to the party in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. It has also been stated during the course of the judgment that the plaintiff who was not in possession cannot take shelter under the guise of setting up false plea of having possession and claiming title and perpetual injunction. He ought to have claimed recovery of possession as alternative relief, which is being claimed at the time of appeal by way of amendment. It has also been observed that by claiming perpetual injunction on. the basis of possession without having possession and not claiming recovery of possession at the first instance, when the suit was filed, the plaintiff took risk and it has been held by the learned Civil Judge that as the plaintiff was not having possession on the date of the suit, the learned Munsiff should have refused the relief of declaration, as the plaintiff had not claimed the relief of possession and dismissed the suit. It is to be noted that the learned Civil Judge has not taken into consideration, during the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff has amended the plaint for possession as an alternative relief. The learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has relied on the decision in Ganapat Singh v. Sher Bahadur Singh and Ors. , wherein it has begn held as under:"plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title to certain property and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's posses- sion. The defendants set up their own possession and title by adverse possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit with findings that the plaintiffs were the owners but not in possession and also that the defendants had not perfected their title by adverse possession. Before the appellate court (which dismissed the appeal) the plaintiff applied for amendment of plain seeking relief of possession. The application was rejected on ground that it was belated. Held, that the plaintiffs had asserted and proved their title. The necessary consequence was that if the defendants were in possession without title, the plaintiffs could claim for delivery of. Before the appellate court (which dismissed the appeal) the plaintiff applied for amendment of plain seeking relief of possession. The application was rejected on ground that it was belated. Held, that the plaintiffs had asserted and proved their title. The necessary consequence was that if the defendants were in possession without title, the plaintiffs could claim for delivery of. possession provided that relief was not barred by limitation or any other law. The plaintiffs by the amendment sought the relief of possession in the alternative. There is no bar in claiming a relief in the alternative. In these circumstances the amendment ought to have been allowed. " ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has also relied on the decision in ml. S/ian/caranarayana Rao v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore wherein it is held that once the amendment is allowed, that amendment relates back to the date of the institution of the suit and the relevant date for consideration whether the amended claim is barred by limitation or not is the date of the institution of the suit. ( 12 ) IN the present case on hand when the application was filed for amendment of the plaint, the same was resisted by the defendant and after contest, the application was allowed. Accordingly, the plaint was amended and also the additional written statement was filed. The learned Counsel for the defendant has seriously contended that inspite of the fact that the defendant has not filed any crossappeal and no revision was filed against the order allowing the amendment, in the circumstances,. in the present appeal, he can contend that the application for amendment of the plaint should not have been allowed by the i Appellate Court or there were no bo no fides on the part of the plaintiff for allowing the application for amendment. The learned counsel for the defendant has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in A. K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Darnodar Valley Corporation wherein it has been held that in the matter of allowing amendment of pleading the general rule is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on the new cause of action is barred. Where however, the amendment does not constitute the. Where however, the amendment does not constitute the. addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts merely to a different or additional approach to the same facts the amendment is to be allowed even after expiry of the statutory period of limitation. In the present case, it has to be noted that the main contention taken by the defendant to the amendment is that she has perfected her title by law of adverse possession. In the trial court, with respect to the contention of the defendant so far as the adverse possession is concerned, additional issues were framed viz. , additional Issue No. I is whether the defendant proves that the suit area has fallen to the share of her husband's ancestors in the partition? and additional issue No. 2 is whether the defendant proves that suit of the, plain tiff is barred by time? This aspect has also been considered by the I Appellate Court. During the course of the judgment, the learned Civil judge has observed that the plaintiff is the owner of Sy. No. 258 which totally measures 24 acres 9 guntas. Suit portion is admittedly southern portion measuring 3 acres 27 guntas in Sy. No. 258. It is not the case of the defendant that the adjoining land towards south was allotted to the grandfather of her husband during the partition to claim that suit portion was also allotted as part and parcel of said southern land. Hence if at all suit portion was only allotted to the share of grandfather of her husband then it ought to have been mutated either in the name of grandfather or the father of her husband or atleast in the name of her husband on the basis of such partition. After discussing the entire evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Civil judge has held that'when it is admitted that sy. No. 258 was allotted to the ancestors of plaintiff in the absence of acceptable evidence, it shall have to be held that the entire extent of said Sy. No. was allotted and not portion of it. He has affirmed the finding given by the learned Munsiff with respect to the title of the plaintiff to the suit land. No. 258 was allotted to the ancestors of plaintiff in the absence of acceptable evidence, it shall have to be held that the entire extent of said Sy. No. was allotted and not portion of it. He has affirmed the finding given by the learned Munsiff with respect to the title of the plaintiff to the suit land. The learned counsel for the defendant has contended that though the defendant has not filed any cross-appeal still, he can oppose the order of amendment passed by the learned civil Judge while supporting the judgment of the First Appellate Court. He has relied on the decisions in Nagendra Nath Chose and Anr. v. Ram Bharosa Haluai wherein it has been held that in an appeal it is open to respondent without filing a cross objection to support the judgment and decree of the lower court by traversing, any ground which that Court may have found against him. But it is the respondent who must support the judgment and decree; he cannot throw upon the appellate court the burden of raising a case for him which he does not choose to raise himself. It has been seriously contended by the learned counsel for the- defendant that Order II Rule 2 CPC is a bar so far as allowing the amendment is concerned. This contention, in my opinion, is not of much force for the reason that Order II Rule 2 CPC is a bar for filing a second suit. Order II Rule 2 (1) states that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any court. (2 ). Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. (2 ). Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. Thus it is seen that Order II Rule 2 (3) states that omission to sue for want of several reliefs a person is entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. ( 13 ) IT is to be noted in the present case on hand that the suit was originally filed by the plaintiff for title and as a consequential relief claiming only for injunction but in the first appeal, the plaintiff amended the plaint for alternative relief of possession. It is well settled that the appeal is continuation of the suit. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that Order II Rule 2 CPC is a bar for claiming alternative relief cannot be accepted. The main contention of the learned counsel is that the amendment sought by the plantiff in the first appeal was not bonafide one and the application should not have been allowed. Even at this stage the contention of the defendant has to be countenanced. He has relied on the decision in Aisha and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, wherein it is held that facts of the case manifestly revealed that the plaintiff had been responsible for deliberately causing much delay in applying for an amendment of the plaint. The lack of bonafides on the part of the appellant was quite apparent. Amendment of the plaint was not allowed at the appellate stage. It has also been held that a valuable right had accrued to the defendant inasmuch a suit for the recovery of a specific amount of money against it had become barred by limitation. The defendant cannot justifiably be deprived of the right that had vested in it. No circumstances had been shown to exist to deprive the defendant of this valuable right. The amendment if allowed would cause an injury to the defendant for which it cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise. Hence, the amendment cannot be allowed. The defendant cannot justifiably be deprived of the right that had vested in it. No circumstances had been shown to exist to deprive the defendant of this valuable right. The amendment if allowed would cause an injury to the defendant for which it cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise. Hence, the amendment cannot be allowed. This decision is distinguishable from the facts of the present case for the reason that the amendment sought for possession as an alternative relief was on the basis of the title of the plaintiff which has been allowed by the Appellate Court and also the claim of the defendant of adverse possession has been negatived by the trial Court. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that by allowing the amendment application, cause of action would have changed or the valuable right already vested in the defendant could have been taken away. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the defendant has also relied on the decision of the supreme Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal and ors. v. Smt. Deorajin Debi and Anr. , This decision is with respect to Section 105 CPC interlocutory order when can be challenged in appeal from final decree or order - Order of remand passed by the High Court. Appeal to supreme Court by special leave from final decision after remand. Section 105 (2) does not apply and order of remand can be challenged. In the present case on hand, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the defendant, now challenging the order passed by the' I Appellate Court allowing the amendment of the plaint cannot be countenanced at a belated stage as no cross-appeal has been filed by the defendant and no other action has been taken against the order passed by the 1 appellate Court. On the other hand, the additional written statement was filed and also the matter was decided on the merits of the claim of the parties. On the other hand, the additional written statement was filed and also the matter was decided on the merits of the claim of the parties. Even from the order passed by the I Appellate Court, it is seen that so far as the title of the plaintiff is concerned, it has come to the conclusion that the finding given by the learned Munsiff with respect to the title has to be affirmed But during the course of the order with respect to the relief of possession, it has been stated that at the time of the filing of the suit the plaintiff had not made the prayer for possession in the alternative though such a relief was available to him and hence the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of possession. It is to be noted that when the Court has already allowed the application for amendment of the plaint for the alternative relief of possession, the finding given by the I Appellate Court that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of possession has to be held not proper. So far as the adverse possession is concerned, the learned Civil judge during the course of his order has held that the amendment application was filed in the first appeal in the year 1990. If the amendment had not been allowed, the plaintiff could not have filed another suit for possession as Order II Rule 2 CPC is a bar. The reasoning given by the learned Civil Judge that the relief of possession would have been provided that the suit of the plaintiff is not barred by limitation. It is to be seen that the present suit has been filed in the year 1984 and as per the Commissioner's report, the encroachment was observed in the year 1983 and the suit has been filed in the year 1984 and the present amendment application has been filed in the year 1990 and the same has been allowed in the year 1991 and even on the date of the suit, the claim for possession could not have been held as barred by time. In view of the finding given by the trial Court that the defendant had not established adverse possession to the suit schedule property and in view of the amendment to the plaint for recovery of possession and also in view of the fact that the title of the plaintiff has been affirmed by the trial Court as well as by the I appellate Court with respect to the suit schedule property and the amendment of the plaint, though made in the appellate court as it relates back to the date of the suit arid when the findings of the learned Civil Judge as well as the Trial Court with respect to the title to the suit property of the plaintiff has been upheld and in view of the fact that the adverse possession set up by 'the defendant has been negatived. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned Civil Judge that the appellant/plaintiff cannot be given relief of declaration of title and for possession is not proper and the same has to be negatived. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court are hereby set aside. The suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and possession of the suit schedule property is decreed. The claim for mesne profits, has to be enquired into as per the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 CPC. ( 16 ) IN the circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs of the appeal. Second appeal allowed. --- *** --- .