JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Shri B.D. Mandhyan, the learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri M.M. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the Defendant-Appellant and Sri V.D. Ojha, the learned Counsel assisted by Sri Sushil Jaiswal, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the disputed property and for damages and mesne profit. The plaintiffs alleged that the property in question belonged to the three brothers, namely, Mohan Lal, Kalyan Rai and Subarti. Subarti dies issueless. Mohan Lal had two sons, Noni Rai and Mangal Sen. The plaintiff No. 1, Roshan Lal is the son of Noni Rai and the plaintiff No. 2, Ved Ram is the son of Mangal Sen. Kalyan Rai had two sons, Ratan Lal and Babu Ram. The plaintiffs alleged that Ratan Lal died issueless and he had also relinquished his rights in favour of the plaintiffs. The second son, Babu Ram had three daughters, namely, Smt. Ram Kali, Ram Katori and Nanhi who are plaintiff Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had executed a fictitious sale-deed executed by Ratan Lal and, based on illegal sale-deed, took possession over the property which led to the initiation of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. and which eventually led to the filing of the present suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit alleging that he is the owner and in possession of the property in question on the basis of a valid sale-deed. The defendant further submitted that the property in question was the self acquired property of Ratan Lal and that he had every right to sell the property and that the plaintiffs had no right or title on the property in question. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, various issues were framed and after evidence, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed with cost. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs are the co-owners of the property in question alongwith the deceased Ratan Lal and that the property was an ancestral property and it was not the self acquired property of Ratan Lal. The trial Court further found that the sale-deed which was executed by Ratan Lal in favour of the defendants was a fictitious document. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree of the trial Court, the defendant filed appeal which was also dismissed. The trial Court further found that the sale-deed which was executed by Ratan Lal in favour of the defendants was a fictitious document. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree of the trial Court, the defendant filed appeal which was also dismissed. The Appellate Court, after reappraising the evidence, again came to the same conclusion that the property was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the property was not acquired by Ratan Lal. Further, the lower Appellate Court found that the sale-deed executed allegedly by Ratan Lal was a fictitious document. 6. The defendant being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, has filed the present second appeal. 7. The only question urged before this Court was that the plaintiffs had not pleaded the fact that the property in question was ancestral, and therefore, the Court below committed an error in giving a finding on this aspect and therefore, the Courts below had travelled beyond the pleadings of the plaintiffs. In my view, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant is bereft of merit. 8. From the pleadings, it is clear that the plaintiffs had categorically stated as to how they had inherited the property from their forefathers. The defendant in his written statement had categorically came out with a case that the property was the self acquired property of Ratan Lal. The Court while deciding the issue had necessarily to give a finding as to whether the property was ancestral or was the self acquired property of Ratan Lal. The trial Court had specifically framed an issue, namely, as to whether the plaintiffs are the co-owners of the land in dispute alongwith Ratan Lal. This was a relevant issue and was framed on the basis of the pleading made by the parties. Consequently, it is incorrect to state that the Court below had travelled beyond the pleadings and had unnecessarily given a finding that the property in dispute was an ancestral property. 9. Even if a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication and the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleading would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon it if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. In the present case, the matter relating to the title of both the parties to the suit was touched though indirectly. Since issues and evidence had been led, the Court was obliged in giving a finding on this aspect of the matter. 10. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Court below being based on findings of fact. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration. The second appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. ————