JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. By consent of the parties, the second appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The defendant is the appellant herein challenging the concurrent judgments rendered in the suit granting the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and also mandatory injunction to remove the superstructure put up by the defendant, the appellant herein, in the suit property. 3. The case of the plaintiff, the respondent herein, is as follows:- The defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff. There were arrears of rent. Therefore, the plaintiff filed R.C.O.P.No. 235 of 1991 for eviction. Having aggrieved over this, the defendant constructed superstructure in a portion of the vacant land belonging to the plaintiff. Therefore, she filed the suit for the above reliefs. 4. The case of the defendant is this:- The defendant is enjoying the suit property not as a tenant but as a title-holder. She also filed a suit in O.S.No. 1207 of 1986 seeking for permanent injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering with her enjoyment and possession of the premises. Subsequently, the suit was decreed. Therefore, the present suit seeking for declaration of title and mandatory injunction is not maintainable. 5. After trial, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the respondent herein. The lower appellate court also confirmed the same. Hence, this second appeal. 6. Mr. Periaswamy, the learned Counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that both the courts below have failed to consider the vital aspect in relation to the decree passed in the earlier suit filed by the appellant as against the respondent. 7. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent/caveator, pointed out the findings of both the courts below that the defendant herself admitted in the earlier suit and R.C.O.P. that she was enjoying the suit premises as a tenant under the plaintiff, the respondent herein. 8. As pointed out by the counsel for the respondent, it is found by both the courts below that the superstructure was built and it was converted into a bath room only after filing of the present suit. Moreover, as held by both the courts below that there is no document produced by the appellant to show that she is the owner of the suit premises. Moreover, as held by both the courts below that there is no document produced by the appellant to show that she is the owner of the suit premises. But on the contrary, the plaintiff, the respondent herein has produced number of documents to show that she purchased the suit premises from the original owner and the appellant has been enjoying the property as a tenant and in order to evict her under due process of law, she has filed eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No. 235 of 1991. 9. It is also found by both the courts below that the finding in the earlier suit in O.S.No. 1207 of 1986 filed by the appellant would not disentitle the plaintiff, the respondent herein to seek for the reliefs sought for in the present suit. Therefore, in the absence of any substantial question of law, I am unable to find merit in this second appeal. 10. However, the counsel for the appellant would point out that apart from the reliefs sought for in the suit granted, the trial court awarded a sum of Rs, 1,000 towards damages to the respondent herein without any plea or prayer in this regard and without court fee paid for the same. The learned Counsel for the respondent also would admit that such a relief was granted, even though no such claim was made by the plaintiff. 11. I have gone through the judgment of the trial court. No doubt it is true that the trial court awarded damages of Rs. 1,000 by invoking Sections 35(a)(1) and (2) of C.P.C. However, the lower appellate court did, not discuss about this aspect. 12. Though the powers are existing, in my view, in the absence of the plea or prayer, the decree for damages may not be correct, as admitted by the counsel for the respondent. Therefore, the judgment and decree relating to the damages alone are liable to be set aside and accordingly, they are set aside. However, the findings with reference to the other reliefs recorded by both the courts below are, in my view, valid and correct and the same are not to be disturbed. I dismiss the second appeal as far as those things are concerned. 13. In the result, the second appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No. 4088 of 1998 stands dismissed.