JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J.(Oral):- I have heard learned counsel for the parties. At the time of admission of this appeal, no substantial question of law was formulated. After hearing learned counsel, I am of the opinion that following substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal:-­ (i) Whether the relief for possession can be granted in a suit for permanent injunction without there being any allegation or evidence of dispossession during the pendency of the suit. 2. This is defendant’s Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below. Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant-appellant herein from dispossessing or interfering in possession of the plaintiff’s agricultural land bearing Khewat No.275/280 Khasra Nos.75//20/2/1-17, 21/1/1-5 total 3 K-2M situated at village Mansurpur, Tehsil Nabha and in the alternative suit for possession. The trial Court framed as many as 11 issues. The claim for permanent injunction is on the strength of sale deed dated 24.1.1978 executed by one Harnam Singh in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Appellant-defendant herein claimed possession of the suit land and denied the allegation of interference and alleged threat of dispossession. On the basis of the evidence recorded by the trial Court which includes the revenue record comprising Jamabandi/Khasra girdawari for various periods, the trial Court while deciding issue No.1 held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. The trial Court also recorded a specific finding that at the time of purchase of the land vide sale deed dated 24.1.1978 by the plaintiff, possession was not delivered to him as the same was with the present appellant (defendant) in the suit in his capacity as a tenant. The relief of permanent injunction was accordingly denied. However, the trial Court proceeded to grant a decree for possession on the basis of the ownership of the plaintiff-respondent and in view of the alternative prayer for possession vide judgment and decree dated 1.10.1981. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, present appellant preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, who has concurred with the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The Appellate Court also confirmed the decree for possession on the same ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and he has prayed for possession as an alternative relief. 3. The Appellate Court also confirmed the decree for possession on the same ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and he has prayed for possession as an alternative relief. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-defendant has vehemently urged before this Court that both the courts have committed a grave illegality in granting the decree for possession as an alternative relief which is not only contrary to the pleadings but also without there being any evidence and without affording any opportunity to the defendant-appellant to defend his possession. It is in these circumstances that the substantial question of law has been framed. 4. It is relevant to refer to the prayer for possession made by the plaintiff in the plaint. Plaintiff has claimed possession as an alternative relief and necessary averments are made in para No.3 and the prayer part, which is reproduced hereunder:- “3. Plaintiffs are entitled to get the possession of the land from the defendant on the basis of title, in case defendant successful in dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land as plaintiffs are the sole owners in equal shares of the land.” Prayer: “And in the alternative, suit for possession of the above land be decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant, in case defendant is successful in dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land.” Even the issue framed by the Court being issue No.3 reads as under: “3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get possession from the defendant in case they are dispossessed from the suit land? OPP” 5. From the pleadings and the issue, it is evident that the prayer for possession was dependent upon the dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit land. It has come in evidence that the defendant-appellant was in possession of the suit property even prior to its purchase by the respondent-plaintiff. It is no body’s case that at any stage after the purchase of the property, plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendant and particularly there is nothing on record to show that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff was dispossessed. In absence of there being any evidence to this effect, there was no occasion for both the courts to have granted the relief of possession. In absence of there being any evidence to this effect, there was no occasion for both the courts to have granted the relief of possession. The judgment and decrees of the courts below are thus contrary to the pleadings and the evidence on record and also in absence of there being any prayer for possession. Had there been a prayer for possession straight way on the basis of the title acquired on the basis of the sale deed, appellant would have been in a better position to defend his possession on any permissible grounds? This opportunity has not been afforded to the appellant. The judgment and decrees impugned herein are thus not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside. This appeal is accordingly allowed, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed without any order as to costs. ————————