Short Note This appeal tiled against the judgment and decree in Civil First Appeal No. 230/81-A dated 5.11.1982 passed by learned X th A.DJ. Indore, who was pleased to dismiss the same upholding the judgment of the trial Court granting decree in favour of respondent No.1. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned lower appellate Court has committed an error of law in holding that the suit for mere relief of declaration without asking the relief for possession is not barred by the provisions of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?" Learned counsel Shri P.K. Gupta argued that the lower Courts were not right in granting the decree in the absence of the prayer for possession and title and in the absence of any specific relief asked for accordingly. The short facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit claiming to be entitled to the suit properties more specifically detailed in the judgment as also in the plaint. The trial Court raised questions for determination whether the plaintiff is the son born through Gauribai with deceased Savantia and is a legal heir to the property and whether he is entitled to the mutation in his favour. The suit properties were initially in the joint name of deceased Savantia alongwith the appellant and respondents No.2 to 7 and alter the death of Savantia in the joint name of Sonibai and the appellant as also respondents No.2 to 7. It is claimed by the respondent No.1 that the respondent No.1 is the son of Savantia legally wedded to Gauribai, the mother of respondent No.1. The defendants names were mutated on 12.7.1977 according to respondent No.1 fraudulently and the respondent No.1 was not made known to this fact. It is claimed that respondent No. 1 is the sole surviving successor in the capacity of his legitimate son to succeed Savantia and to get his name solely mutated. Both the Courts concurrently held that the respondent No.1 was the son of Gauribai through her wedlock with the deceased Savantia. The claim of the parties is that they would be the members of family of Savantia. Both the Courts concurrently held that the respondent No.1 was the son of Gauribai through her wedlock with the deceased Savantia. The claim of the parties is that they would be the members of family of Savantia. In that view of the matter both the Courts held concurrently that there is no need of asking separately a prayer for possession since the property is held jointly by all. Learned counsel Shri Gupta argued that there is no prayer the title. When we see the plaint there is an amendment carried out which makes out the relevant prayer of declaration of the title and there is also a prayer for any other relief which can be granted by the Court legally. In such circumstances the substantial question of law as framed does not arise in this matter, therefore, the second appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with costs. The costs of respondent No.1 will be borne by the appellant. The advocate's fee as may be proved.