JUDGMENT L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J :- The 1st defendant in OS No.56 of 2010 filed this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 5.6.2012, passed by the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada. 2. The 1st respondent (for short 'the respondent') filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the appellant from executing any kind of document in favour of third parties, in any manner, effecting the limited rights of the respondent, being 16170th undivided share in the plaint schedule property. It was pleaded that Agraharapu Meena Rao, the paternal grandfather of himself and the appellant, was given 16/70th share with limited rights in the suit schedule property, under a registered settlement deed, dated 14.12.1957, executed by the Proprietor and Manager of Sri Venkateswara Salt Kotars, a Firm. He further pleaded that Meena Rao executed a Will, dated 17.4.1990, under Ex.A2, bequeathing his undivided share in the suit schedule property to the appellant and that the same was deposited with the Sub-Registrar, Kakinada, the 2nd respondent herein, on 25.6.1993. 3. The cause of action for the respondent to file the suit was stated to be the steps taken by the appellant and her husband to sell part of the suit schedule property, claiming that it has accrued to her under a Will, dated 2.6.1992, said to have been executed by Meena Rao. The respondent pleaded that he alone is entitled to the undivided share of late Meena Rao and that there was no basis for the appellant to claim rights over the same. 4. The appellant filed written statement, opposing the suit. She refuted the claim of the respondent that Meena Rao executed a Will in the year 1990. Her further plea was that Meena Rao executed a Will on 9.5.1993 (Ex.B1), in her favour, and thereby, the Will relied upon by the respondent, even if proved, stood cancelled. 5. The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment, dated 5.6.2012. 6. Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court committed serious error in recording findings on the Wills pleaded by the respondent, on the one hand, and the appellant, on the other hand. He contends that the very frame of relief in the suit is impermissible. 6. Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court committed serious error in recording findings on the Wills pleaded by the respondent, on the one hand, and the appellant, on the other hand. He contends that the very frame of relief in the suit is impermissible. Learned Counsel submits that the respondent failed to place the original of Ex.A2 before the trial Court and still a finding was recorded thereon. Learned Counsel further submits that certain observations made by the trial Court are contrary to the settled principles of law and the judgment and decree passed by it, cannot be sustained. 7. Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that though the suit was filed for the limited relief of perpetual injunction, the parties have gone in issue as regards validity of Wills also, and accordingly, the trial Court proceeded to decide the matter exhaustively. He contends that the appellant did not raise any objection, when the certified copy of the Will i.e., Ex.A2, was filed. It is also his case that the appellant failed to prove EX.B9. 8. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: (i) "Whether the Wills dated 17.4.1990 and 9.5.1993 said to have been executed by Agraharapu Meenarao are true, valid and binding on the parties? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from ever executing any kind of document in favour of 3rd parties in any manner whatsoever affecting the limited rights of plaintiff's 16/70th undivided share in the plaint schedule property?" 9. To prove his case, the respondent deposed as PW1 and one of the attestors of the Will relied upon by him, was examined as PW2. He filed EXs. A1 to A16. On behalf of the appellant, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B9 were filed. The suit was decreed. 10. In view of the grounds pleaded by the appellant in the arguments advanced by the parties, this Court is of the view that the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (a) Whether the relief of perpetual injunction just to restrain the defendant in a suit from alienating the suit schedule property fits into Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? (b) Whether in a suit for injunction simplicitor, a Court can pronounce upon the validity of the respective Wills, propounded by the plaintiff and the defendant? Point No.(i): 11. Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'), provides for grant of perpetual injunctions. The provision reads: “Perpetual injunction when granted:- (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication. (2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the Court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II. (3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff's right to or enjoyment of, property, the Court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely: (a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff; (b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage' caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion: (c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief: (d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings." 12. In majority of the suits filed before the civil Courts, the relief claimed is the one of perpetual injunction. The general category of the perpetual injunctions, claimed in such suits, are to restrain the defendants therein from interfering with the possession or rights of the plaintiffs. Here again, the effort in majority of the suits is to prevent the defendants from interfering with the possession over the suit schedule properties. The relief in the form of perpetual injunction is also claimed to prevent the invasion of ones rights, be it in the context of trade, business or other activities. 13. The relief claimed in the suit filed by the respondent is "for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from ever executing any kind of document in favour of third parties in any manner whatsoever affecting the limited rights of plaintiff's l6/70th undivided share in the plaint schedule property". The reliefs of this nature are claimed in interlocutory applications filed in suits for specific performance of an agreement of sale. There do not exist any instances of such a relief being claimed as exclusive one in the suit. 14. The reliefs of this nature are claimed in interlocutory applications filed in suits for specific performance of an agreement of sale. There do not exist any instances of such a relief being claimed as exclusive one in the suit. 14. From a perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the Act, it becomes clear that a defendant in a suit can be restrained through perpetual injunction, to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of a plaintiff. Obviously, it is for this reason that the Courts insist the plaintiff to convince it about the existence of such rights/obligation, be it in the form of title or other entitlement. Though proof of absolute title is not necessary in suits for injunction simplicitor, a plaintiff is under obligation to show the existence of rights in him and the corresponding obligation in others, so that, the defendant can be made to respect the same. Once law recognizes existence of rights or title in a plaintiff, it places obligation on all others to respect that. Viewed in this context, the existence of such rights must not be in doubt, for the Court, to grant the relief of injunction. If the Court seriously doubts the existence of at least semblance of rights in the plaintiff, it has to require him to seek the relief of declaration, in which case, grant of injunction becomes secondary. 15. Even where the plaintiff does not possess a clear title over the property, he has to establish his possession over it for claiming the relief of perpetual injunction. When the plaintiff does not assert possession over the property, the question of granting any relief of perpetual injunction, does not arise. The instances provided for in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the Act are only illustrative in nature. What is common to all of them, is the existence of obligation, in favour of the plaintiff. 16. Reverting to the facts of the case, except stating that his grandfather-Meena Rao executed a Will under Ex.A2, in his favour, the respondent did not mention as to how he translated such rights under it, into reality, or how he is enjoying rights of whatever category, vis-a-vis the suit schedule property. 16. Reverting to the facts of the case, except stating that his grandfather-Meena Rao executed a Will under Ex.A2, in his favour, the respondent did not mention as to how he translated such rights under it, into reality, or how he is enjoying rights of whatever category, vis-a-vis the suit schedule property. He did not even state that he in possession of the property, obviously because the disposition under a deed of settlement, EX.A1 was said to be only an undivided share of 16/70th, that too with several restrictions. He did not spell out the conditions. As observed earlier, the type of relief claimed in the suit, is generally prayed for in an interlocutory application filed in a suit for specific performance of an agreement. The prayer in OS No.56 of 2010 does not at all fit into Section 38 of the Act and other settled principles of law. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly. Point No.(ii): 17. Assuming that there is no defect in the prayer in the suit filed by the respondent, it needs to be seen as to whether the trial Court was justified or competent to pronounce upon the Wills i.e., Exs.A2 and 89, relied upon by the respondent and the appellant, respectively. The first issue framed by the trial Court paved the way for such an adjudication. 18. A bare reading of Rule 1 of Order XIV C.P.C., makes it abundantly clear that issues are to be framed on the basis of the pleadings in a suit. It hardly needs any mention that the Court is to be guided by the prayer in a suit and it is in the process of examining the feasibility of granting the prayer that the area of controversy between the parties is culled out from the pleadings. If there is any unanimity between the parties on any aspect, the necessity to frame an issue on that, does not arise. In a typical suit, the Court frames issues that have bearing upon the prayer in the suit, the parties adduce evidence, with reference to the issues, and the Court adjudicates the matter accordingly. 19. There may be instances where though a particular aspect is not dealt with in the pleadings, the Court can pronounce upon it, if the parties have revealed their respective positions and have adduced evidence. 19. There may be instances where though a particular aspect is not dealt with in the pleadings, the Court can pronounce upon it, if the parties have revealed their respective positions and have adduced evidence. Even this limited facility can be extended as long as it does not broaden the scope of the suit. 20. Apart from the point of view of convenience and procedure, the controversies, which are foreign to a particular suit, are to be avoided in the context of substantive law also. Many a time, question of Court fee, limitation would also become relevant. Unless there are pleadings touching on these aspects, it would not at all feasible for any Court to deal with issues and aspects that do not squarely fall into the ambit of suit. To cite an example, a plaintiff cannot be permitted to seek adjudication upon the question of title to an item of property just by paying Court-fee for the relief of perpetual injunction. Even where the defendant in a suit is not vigilant enough to resist such efforts, or indirectly colludes with the plaintiff, the Court is required to be cautious and careful in this regard. The appellant did raise an objection as to valuation of a suit. The trial Court however ignored the same, on the ground that the same was not seriously pressed in the written arguments. Viewed in this context, it was not at all permissible for the trial Court, to pronounce upon Exs.A2 and B9. 21. The manner in which the trial Court dealt with both the Wills relied upon by the parties, is also not satisfactory. For instance, it commenced the discussion, straight away placing the burden upon the appellant i.e., the defendant, while dealing with Issue No.(i). Secondly, the trial Court's finding on EX.B9 is almost a result of its obsession with EX.A2. The original of EX.A2 was not before it. That serious lapse was ignored on the ground that the appellant herein did not raise any objection. When doubt was expressed as to the genuinity of the signature, of the executant on Ex.A2, the burden was placed upon the appellant and it was observed that she failed to summon the original records. 22. That serious lapse was ignored on the ground that the appellant herein did not raise any objection. When doubt was expressed as to the genuinity of the signature, of the executant on Ex.A2, the burden was placed upon the appellant and it was observed that she failed to summon the original records. 22. Dealing with the submission that EX.B9 is subsequent in point of time, and thereby, it has annulled Ex.A2, the trial Court observed that the appellant must prove as to why no steps were taken for calculation of EX.A2. Para 27 of the judgment reads as under: "Be it may, when according to 1st defendant that the packet Will was obtained by fraud and undue influence, there is no explanation as to why not even a single notice was issued for cancellation of the said Will on the said grounds. Admittedly, no suit is filed for cancellation of the Will. Admittedly, no legal action was taken against Venkata Ramallaiah, Mallavarapu Kasi Visweswara Rao and Sri M. V. J. Ramagopal, these aspects show that 1st defendant was not diligent in prosecuting the case and to contradict the packet Will." 23. The rest of the discussion is almost on the same lines. The sad part of it is that all this was undertaken in a suit where the relief was only the one of perpetual injunction, that too with its own serious defects. Hence, Point No.(ii) is also answered in favour of the appellant. 24. In view of the discussion undertake above, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It is, however, left open to the 1st respondent to work out his remedies in accordance with law. Status quo obtaining as on today in all respects vis-a-vis the suit schedule property shall be maintained for a period of six weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.