JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Faujdar Rai, Advocate, assisted by Sri C.K. Rai, Advocate, for the appellants and Sri A.K. Goyal, Advocate, for respondents. 2. This is defendants’ Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”). 3. Substantial questions of law, which have arisen in this case, are: (1) Whether the Courts below are justified in granting relief to the plaintiff-respondent beyond what he has stated in the plaint? In other words, can relief be granted to a plaintiff beyond the claim set up by him in the plaint? (2) Whether the Courts below have granted relief to plaintiff-respondents in the present case beyond the assertions contained in the plaint and such decree whether is sustainable in law? 4. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (impleaded as Respondent I Set and hereinafter referred to as “plaintiff”) instituted Original Suit No. 694 of 1993 impleading six defendants, wherein present appellants were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 6. The defendant-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (II set) were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2, 3, and 5. All the defendants, except defendant No. 1, are real brothers, being sons of Nagendra Nath Tiwari. Plaint case set up is that plaintiff purchased a plot being part of a larger Bhumidhari Plot No. 36 situate at Allapur Baski Uparhar, Chail, District Allahabad. The boundaries and map of the plot was given in the schedule appended to the plaint but in para 14 he pleaded that the northern boundary east to west was 54 feet 6 inches. The sale-deed was executed sometimes in 1964 whereafter he constructed a house on some part of the aforesaid land. Sri A.K. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff, stated at the bar that north and south boundaries as per sale-deed were 54 feet 6 inches but referring to para 14 of the plaint stated that on the northern boundary, six inches land on the west side was never claimed by plaintiff and he constructed boundary only for 54 feet. In other words what comes out from plaint case is that the size of plot purchased by plaintiff was 54 feet 6 inches on north and south side both, and 105 feet on east and west side. In other words what comes out from plaint case is that the size of plot purchased by plaintiff was 54 feet 6 inches on north and south side both, and 105 feet on east and west side. However, northern boundary on the western side was constructed only for 54 feet, and, 6 inches area was left by plaintiff unclaimed and that is how plot size, which remained in actual possession of plaintiff, comes to as under: Northern boundary - 54 feet Southern boundary - 54 feet 6 inches Eastern and western boundaries - 105 feet 5. Defendant No. 1 purchased plot on west side of the plot of plaintiff and he also constructed his house thereupon. His is a big family inasmuch the defendant No. 1 is father and defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are his sons. The plaintiff further asserted that some portion of boundary was dismantled by the defendants in May 1993 which the plaintiff reconstructed but the defendants started threatening to demolish boundary wall towards west of his house which gave him a cause of action to file the suit in question. He has sought four reliefs in the plaint, relevant whereof, i.e., reliefs (A) and (B) read as under: “(A) That the defendants, their agents and servants be restrained by means of permanent injunction from dismantling the disputed boundary wall and the platform (Chabutra) of the plaintiff’s house No. 16/47 (old), 222/16/47 (new) New Sohbatiabagh Allahabad, existing over plot No. 36 as mentioned in para 1 of the plaint and also as shown in the annexed plaint map with Red lines. They should further be restrained from encroaching or grabbing the boundary wall and chabutra (platform) of the plaintiff’s house shown with red lines in any manner, and they should further be restrained from interfering in the peaceful use and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s boundary wall and the platform (Chabutra) in dispute. Valued at Rs. 1,000/-. (B) That decree for Rs. 500/- be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants as damages for dismantling some portion of the disputed boundary wall as shown in the plaint map. Valued Rs. 500/-.” 6. Defendants contested the suit stating that there was a compromise between the parties that plaintiff would construct his boundary on the northern side for 53.3 feet but then he committed breach, as a result whereof, a dispute arose between the parties. Valued Rs. 500/-.” 6. Defendants contested the suit stating that there was a compromise between the parties that plaintiff would construct his boundary on the northern side for 53.3 feet but then he committed breach, as a result whereof, a dispute arose between the parties. The defendants, however, averred that the disputed boundary itself does not belong to plaintiff and it was never constructed by him. 7. Plaintiff thereafter filed an amendment application (paper No. 35-A) seeking substitution of the map attached with the plaint by filing another map which was a blue print. This amendment was allowed by Trial Court by order dated 13.11.1997. The amended map attached with plaint shows southern and northern boundaries as 55 feet 6 inches and 54 feet, in length, respectively. 8. Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to submit a report by inspecting the site. The report dated 13.12.2000 was submitted by Sri Satya Prakash Goyal, Advocate Commissioner, who found the actual length of boundaries on the north and south side being 54 feet 1 inch and 55 feet 10 inches respectively. Trial Court partly decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.2001 restraining the defendants from damaging and disturbing the boundaries situated on the western side of plaintiff’s house as also the platform and made Advocate Commissioner’s map as part of the decree. 9. With respect to ownership of boundary etc., the Issue No. 1, framed by Trial Court, was decided in favour of plaintiff. Thereagainst defendants came in Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001 which has been dismissed by Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as “LAC”) vide judgment dated 12.8.2005. 10. Sir Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for appellants, submitted that injunction has been granted by Courts below in favour of plaintiff restraining defendant-appellants from causing any interference with the disputed boundary and for that purpose, Advocate Commissioner’s map has been made part of the decree without realising the fact that as per Advocate Commissioner’s map itself, the boundaries of plaintiff had exceeded the area mentioned in his sale-deed read with his own assertions contained in para 14 of the plaint, and, that is how, in effect, Courts below have granted a relief to the plaintiff beyond the case set up by him (plaintiff) regarding the disputed boundaries. 11. 11. Per contra, Sri A.K. Goyal, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No. 1, contended that the disputed boundary having been held to be owned and possessed by plaintiff, in absence of any relief claimed by defendants by filing their own suit, nothing can be claimed by them and since the disputed boundaries are in possession of plaintiff since a long time, defendants have no legal or otherwise right to interfere or disturb the same. 12. Before coming to the questions formulated above, I may also notice at this stage that the disputed area is quite small one, but it has caused serious heart burning between the two neighbours going to the extent of police case, civil dispute, as also a constant reason for a persistent clash and clamour between the two neighbours. It is often said, one cannot choose his neighbour and they come by destiny, but, a close neighbour is much more useful and better than a distant relative. Peace amongst neighbours would be beneficial not only to the parties, but also for the locality, in particular, and society, in general and the Country, in the ultimate. It is really a disturbing fact that a small piece of land has caused a dispute like the present one, and, that too, continuing for the last 20 years in the Courts and may be more outside the Courts. 13. While answering the substantial questions of law, as formulated above, this Court finds, if equity and just so requires, the Court can mould relief in a given situation so as to do complete justice between the parties. Order VII Rule 7 of the Code permits Court to grant general or other relief which it may deem fit provided finds it just and to the same extent as it has been asked for. It, however, cannot be doubted that while doing so, Court shall not travel beyond pleadings, issues and evidences; and, the relief, which is totally different, not asked by either of the parties, shall not be granted. In U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Udai Narain Pandey, AIR 2006 SC 586, the Court held that under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code, power has been conferred upon the Court to mould relief in a given situation. 14. In U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Udai Narain Pandey, AIR 2006 SC 586, the Court held that under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code, power has been conferred upon the Court to mould relief in a given situation. 14. Provision of Order VII Rule 7 C.P.C. have been considered in past also in several authorities and it would be prudent to refer some of the authorities which would through light on the scope of aforesaid provision. 15. In Pandohi Ahir v. Faruq Khan and another, AIR 1954 All 191 , “A” and “B” were co-sharers. “A” sold a land to “C”. “B” filed a suit claiming possession of the land stating that he was entitled for exclusive possession of the property as the said land was already in his possession to the exclusion of “A”. A Single Judge of this Court held that “A” and “B”, being co-sharers, “B” had no right to claim exclusive possession of the plot to the exclusion of “A” and similarly “A” had no right to transfer specific plot to “C” but can transfer his share in plot to “C” and, thereafter “A” and “C” will hold the plot in question as co-sharers. It also observed that if the prayer clause in a plaint is not properly worded, the Court should give due consideration to the decree which should be passed. This part of the observation is referable to Order VII Rule 7 C.P.C. Judgment is relied on to overcome the difficulty in the suits with respect to the relief sought therein. In my view, Order VII Rule 7 can be resorted to by the Court when something can be found within the scope of the relief sought by the plaintiff or where a higher relief is claimed but the Court found that the plaintiff is entitled for a lesser relief but the scope of Order VII Rule 7 cannot be extended by widening the scope of the relief which has actually not been called for or to permit plaintiff to wriggle out of the statutory obstruction like limitation etc. on account of a relief claimed by him which is barred or prohibited or cannot be granted for one or the other reason. on account of a relief claimed by him which is barred or prohibited or cannot be granted for one or the other reason. The Court will not provide a safe passage to a party by reading the words of the reliefs sought by it in a manner which may help it in overcoming the difficulty it otherwise is facing or is bound to face on account of the mandatory provisions of the statute of limitation etc. The scope of Order VII Rule 7 is not to use it as a leverage to help a party to the extent that the other party stands discriminated in an otherwise matter where other party is entitled to get the issue decided in its favour whether it is in respect to limitation, res judicata or similar other statutory provisions. It is the plaintiff who has to be careful enough to find out as to what grievance he actually has, what the real cause of action is and what relief one must claim from the Court. The Court will not provide a comfortable question in the form of rewording of all these things to the extent it may change what has actually been changed by the plaintiff in its entirety. 16. In Sardar Ali Raza khan v. Sardar Nawazish Ali Khan, AIR (30) 1943 Oudh 243, it was held that where more is claimed, the plaintiff may get what is found due to him even though less that what he has claimed. Where more is claimed any smaller amount may be given if found due to the plaintiff. This proposition cannot be doubted but then we may refer to the further observation of the Court that relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. It is not proper for a Court to displace the case made by a party in his pleading and to give effect to an entirely new case which that party has not made out in his pleading and which he has expressly disclaimed. But where the substantial matters which constitute the title of all the parties are touched, though obscurely, in the issues, and they have been fully put in evidence and have formed the main subject of discussion in the Court, the Court may grant a relief though it may not be founded on the pleadings. But where the substantial matters which constitute the title of all the parties are touched, though obscurely, in the issues, and they have been fully put in evidence and have formed the main subject of discussion in the Court, the Court may grant a relief though it may not be founded on the pleadings. Therefore, the mould of relief will depend upon the case and recourse to Order VII Rule 7 can be had only to the extent it does not make violence with the pleadings and reliefs in the suit. 17. Considering the scope of Order VII Rule 7 C.P.C. in Smt. Neelawwa v. Smt. Shivawwa, AIR 1989 Kar 45 , a Division Bench observed: “The normal rule that relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted is not without an exception. Where substantial matters constituting the title of all the parities are touched in the issues and have been fully put in evidence the case does not fall within the aforesaid rule. The Court has to look into the substance of the claim in determining the nature of the relief to be granted. Of course, the Court while moulding the relief must take care to see that relief it grants is not inconsistent with the plaintiff’s claim, and is based on the same cause of action on which the relief claimed in the suit, that it occasions no prejudice or causes embarrassment to the other side; that it is not larger than the one claimed in the suit, even it the plaintiff is really entitled to it, unless he amends the plaint; that it had not been barred by time on the date of presentation of the plaint.” “No doubt the plaintiff has sought for exclusive title and he has not been able to prove his exclusive title; but has been able to prove, that he is entitled to a half share in the suit properties. When a party claims exclusive title to the suit property and is liable to establish that he is entitled to half of the suit property, it will not be unusual for the Court to pass a decree for partition and possession of his half share. In fact such a relief flows from the relief prayed for in the plaint that he is the exclusive owner of the entire property. In fact such a relief flows from the relief prayed for in the plaint that he is the exclusive owner of the entire property. When a larger relief is claimed and what is established, is not the entire relief claimed in the suit but a part of it, as whole includes a part, larger relief includes smaller relief, and it also arises out of the same cause of action. ... Therefore, even if a separate suit has to be filed for partition, the defendant does not have any sustainable defence. Therefore no prejudice will be caused to the defendant/respondent if a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession is passed in this suit itself.” 18. Relief of declaration and injunction is discretionary but it is the duty of the Court to administer justice between the parties and not to convert itself into instrument of injustice or an engine of oppression. In Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others v. Lakshmi Narain and others, (1976) 2 SCC 58 , the Court said: “27. . . . . . the relief of declaration and injunction under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act is purely discretionary and the plaintiff cannot claim it as of right. The relief has to be granted by the court according to sound legal principles and ex debito justitiae. The court has to administer justice between the parties and cannot convert itself into an instrument of injustice or an engine of oppression. In these circumstances, while exercising its discretionary powers the court must keep in mind the well-settled principles of justice and fairplay and should exercise the discretion only if the ends of justice require it, for justice is not an object which can be administered in vacuum.” 19. In American Express Bank Ltd. v. Calcutta Steel Co. and others, (1993) 2 SCC 199 , the Court said: “22. Undoubtedly declaration of the rights or status is one of discretion of the court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Equally the grant or refusal of the relief of declaration and injunction under the provision of that Act is discretionary. The plaintiff cannot claim the relief as of right. It has to be granted according to sound principles of law and ex debito justicia. The court cannot convert itself into an instrument of injustice or vehicle of oppression. Equally the grant or refusal of the relief of declaration and injunction under the provision of that Act is discretionary. The plaintiff cannot claim the relief as of right. It has to be granted according to sound principles of law and ex debito justicia. The court cannot convert itself into an instrument of injustice or vehicle of oppression. While exercising its discretionary power, the court must keep in its mind the well-settled principles of justice and fair play and the discretion would be exercised keeping in view the ends of justice since justice is the hall mark and it cannot be administered in vacuum. Grant of declaration and injunction relating to commercial transactions tend to aid dishonesty and perfidy. Conversely refusal to grant relief generally encourages candour in business behaviour, facilitates free Row of capital, prompt compliance of covenants, sustained growth of commerce and above all inculcates respect for the efficacy of judicial adjudication. Before granting or refusing to grant of relief of declaration or injunction or both the court must weigh pros and cons in each case, consider the facts and circumstances in their proper perspective and exercise discretion with circumspection to further the ends of justice.” 20. Now reverting back to the two questions formulated above, which also have to be considered in the light of Order VII Rule 7, i.e. a relief larger than what is claimed should not be and shall not be granted (See: Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad, AIR 2002 SC 136 ), but within the precincts of it can be moulded to do complete justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 21. In the present case, there is an inconsistency with regard to the length of boundaries of plot owned and possessed by plaintiff. As per the sale-deed, the size of plot purchased by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was 54 feet 6 inches on north and south sides, and 105 feet on east and west sides. The plaintiff himself has pleaded in para 14 that 6 inches land on the northern side he left unclaimed and raised boundaries only for 54 feet in length. He was admittedly entitled to own and continue in possession over the plot he had purchased with four side measurement, i.e., 54 feet on north, 105 feet east and west and 54 feet 6 inches on south side irrespective of the factum of actual construction made thereon or not. He was admittedly entitled to own and continue in possession over the plot he had purchased with four side measurement, i.e., 54 feet on north, 105 feet east and west and 54 feet 6 inches on south side irrespective of the factum of actual construction made thereon or not. Being owner, his constructive possession shall always be deemed unless found defeated by someone else by prescription. Subsequently, the plaint map, which was attached, mentioned boundaries’ size, slightly larger than what the plaintiff himself has stated in the plaint. In the Advocate Commissioner’s map, the northern boundary was found 54 feet 1 inch and southern boundary was found 55 feet 10 inches. It shows that the plaintiff had enlarged the area of his plot by extending boundary on south and north side, slightly larger than what he had actually purchased and, thereafter has claimed possession thereover. 22. Whatever has been mentioned in the plaint map has to be read alongwith the averments made in the plaint and other evidence on record and not in isolation. When there is an inconsistency, the Court will find out the correct measurement and decide the matter accordingly. 23. Looking to the facts as noticed above with respect to area of plot owned by plaintiff including the length of disputed boundaries, it cannot be doubted that the measurement stated in Advocate Commissioner’s map if allowed to stay, it shall confer an undue and illegal advantage upon the plaintiff enabling him to enjoy property beyond what he has actually purchased and had remained in possession throughout, as shown in sale-deed and stated in the various paragraphs of the plaint and, in particular, in para 14. The Courts below, after having held that disputed boundary and other constructions are old and belong to plaintiff, appear to have swayed themselves by decreeing the suit granting injunction in favour of plaintiff making Advocate Commissioner’s map as determining factor, without realising that therein, plaintiff has been shown to occupy a larger length of boundaries on south side than what he has actually claimed and stated in the plaint and others document and is also evident from evidence. 24. 24. Considering these facts and circumstances, while returning the questions in negative, i.e., in favour of defendant-appellants, I modify the impugned judgments and direct that defendants shall not interfere with the boundaries of the disputed land owned and possessed by plaintiff in so much so that the northern boundary shall not be disturbed by defendants to the extent of 54 feet length and on the southern side it shall not be disturbed and plaintiff should be allowed to enjoy peacefully to the extent of 54 feet 6 inches. It goes without saying that the plaintiff’s ownership over disputed land on north side shall however be on 54 feet 6 inches as contained in sale-deed irrespective of the fact that he constructed boundary over 54 feet only as per his averment in plaint. To the extent there is any difference, the plaintiff himself shall take steps for confining the aforesaid boundaries to the extent, as directed above, by necessary rectification, correction and repair work within a period of six months so that the dispute between the parties, for all times to come, may come to an end and parties may live with peace and maintain cordial relations. 25. Before parting, this Court may observe that skyrocketing price of land, particularly in city area, has made the people, less accommodating. Even for a very small part of land, serious disputes surface causing disturbance not only to the warring parties but also to entire locality and society in general. More restrain is needed to be observed with kindheartedness, magnanimity and a sense of better adjustment. An attitude of mutual trust and confidence will result in a peaceful enjoyable life, not only to individuals, but to their families and everybody. That is the need of time. The entire society, and nation in general, is already facing a plethora of problems, much serious in nature. If we remain engaged in a dispute of our local boundaries of the house or plot etc., people in the society in general may not be able to concentrate and devote more requisite time to counter similar but serious menace being faced by Country on international boundaries. It is better that people should realise their responsibility earlier least it is too late. It is better that people should realise their responsibility earlier least it is too late. History has shown that dispute of boundaries and the greed of more and more land has caused serious damage to this Country repeatedly in the last few hundred years, or may be thousand. Smaller things grow large and magnify seriousness of problems. Even a small dispute may cause a serious dent to the tranquility and peace of society which would also be detrimental to everyone. This Court hopes and trusts that the parties in the present appeal shall understand and realise their duty, responsibility and accountability to society, in particular, and the Country, in general, so as to avoid further dispute in the matter like the present one. 26. With the aforesaid directions/observations and modifications of the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2001 passed by Trial Court in Original Suit No. 694 of 1993 and judgment and decree dated 12.8.2005 passed by LAC in Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001, impugned in this second appeal, this appeal is partly allowed. 27. The parties shall bear their own costs. —————