JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of affirmation. The Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2004 passed in Title Appeal No. 35 of 2002 has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2002 passed by Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura in Title Suit 87 of 2000. By the said judgment and decree dated 08.07.2002, the suit was decreed declaring that the plaintiff, the respondent No. 1 herein, is entitled to get the possession of the suit premises (the room) as a tenant under the defendants No. 1 and 2. The defendants No. 1 & 2, the respondents No. 2 & 3 herein, have been directed to resurrect that status. The defendant No. 3, the appellant herein, has been directed for that purpose to hand over the vacant possession of the suit stall in favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of the decree and on his failure, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit stall by evicting the defendant No. 3 therefrom. 2. The undisputed fact that has surfaced from the record is that the respondent No. 1, who has instituted the Title Suit No. 87 of 2000 in the court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura is the tenant, under the respondents No. 2 and 3 who have constructed a cluster of stalls at Lake Chowmunani market. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 had a shop in that market measuring 60 sq. ft., posted in touji No. 137/5 for 10 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 22/- and that stall was bounded on the north by Chrirajib Barman, on the south by road, on the east by the road and on the west by the municipal shop. In the year 1995 the then Agartala Municipal Council had decided to construct permanent stalls within Lake Chowmuhani market. The touji No. 137/5 fell within the complex and it was agreed between the respondent No. 1 & respondent No. 3 that after completion of the construction, the respondent No. 1 would be inducted in the respective touji and an agreement to that effect was entered into. It was agreed that the respondent No. 1 would pay Rs. 22/- as rent per month. It was agreed that the respondent No. 1 would pay Rs. 22/- as rent per month. The respondent No. 1 paid premium to the extent of Rs. 4,200/- on 26.12.1995. After the construction was over, keys of newly constructed stall were handed over the respective touji holders but key of the stall constructed on touji No. 137/5 was not handed over to the respondent No. 1. According to him, the said key was handed over to the defendant No. 3, the appellant herein and the number of the stall has been changed from 01 to 00. When the grievance of the petitioner was not attended to by the respondents No. 2 & 3, he filed the suit for declaration and the consequential reliefs as stated. 3. The respondent No. 1 sought for a declaration that the stall No. 00 is constructed on touji No. 137/5 and hence, the defendant No. 3, the appellant herein cannot be entitled to the said stall. As consequence thereof, the relief of the recovery of the possession of the said stall from the defendant No. 3, the appellant herein, has also been sought. All the defendants resisted such claim of the plaintiff. The respondent No. 2 by filing the written statement has strongly denied that the stall No. 00 was constructed on touji No. 137/5. The Agartala Municipal Council by their written statement has more particularly in paragraphs-7, 8 & 10 stated that 25 pucca stalls including the stall on touji No. 137/5 were constructed. 24 stalls have been allotted to touji holders by the Agartala Municipal Council on handing over the keys. But the key of the stall constructed on touji No. 137/5 could not be handed over for non-appearance of the plaintiff. It has been contended by the Agartala Municipal Council that in addition to 25 pucca stalls, one more stall was constructed at the southern side of the stall of the plaintiff and that stall was allotted to the defendant No. 3 under touji No. 177/5. The Agartala Municipal Council in their written statement have further stated that the stall constructed under touji No. 177/5 was so constructed on the space available on the southern side of the touji No. 137/5. The Agartala Municipal Council has stated that the defendant No. 1 had constructed stall on touji No. 177/5 and the Agartala Municipal Council had received Rs. The Agartala Municipal Council has stated that the defendant No. 1 had constructed stall on touji No. 177/5 and the Agartala Municipal Council had received Rs. 5,715/- as premium and has been receiving a monthly rent of Rs. 71/. The Agartala Municipal Council has further stated that the touji was posted on the basis of the previous possession in a kuccha hut, where the defendant No. 1 had been running the business after purchasing the possession for the said viti from one Manmohan Debnath on the basis of an unregistered deed. The plaintiff has admitted in the evidence the receipt granted by the Agartala Municipal Council against touji No. 137/5, wherefrom it is available that the measurement of the stall on touji No. 137/5 admeasures 60 sq. ft. The plaintiff has also introduced the receipt of the premium (Exbt. 2) issued on 26.12.1995. The defendant No. 3 produced some documents which were admitted in the evidence as Exbt. A series. From one receipt of the premium, it is found that the stall under touji No. 177/5 admeasures 11’ 5" x 6’ 3" = 71 sq. ft. From the rent receipt dated 16.09.2000 it also appears that the touji No. 177/5 measuring 71 sq. ft. was allotted from the month of Baisakha, 1382 B.S. From the letter dated 16.09.2000 (part of Annexure-A series), it transpires that the respondents No. 2 & 3 proposed to let out the said stall at a monthly rent of Rs. 75 and an yearly premium of Rs. 4,970/- on certain conditions. In the said letter, the area of the stall has been described by boundaries as under: On the North-Biplab Debnath. On the South-Govt. road. On the East-Govt. road and On the West-Maran Chandra Debnath. Even the unregistered sale deed used for handing over the possession to the defendant No. 3 has been admitted in the evidence. Exbt. B which has been introduced by the defendant No. 3 is the copy of the minutes of the market stalls allotment committee, wherefrom it is found that the defendant No. 3 is allotted with the stall on the touji No. 177/5. 4. There is no dispute that touji No. 137/5 is identified by the distinct boundary, distinguishable from the boundary of touji No. 177/5. That apart, areas of those toujis are also at variance. Touji No. 137/5 admeasures 60 sq. ft. whereas touji No. 177/5 admeasures 71 sq. 4. There is no dispute that touji No. 137/5 is identified by the distinct boundary, distinguishable from the boundary of touji No. 177/5. That apart, areas of those toujis are also at variance. Touji No. 137/5 admeasures 60 sq. ft. whereas touji No. 177/5 admeasures 71 sq. ft. There is no dispute further that the plaintiff, the respondent No. 1 herein was in possession of the stall in touji No. 137/5. 5. The bone of contention in the suit was that the stall which has been occupied by the defendant No. 3 falls purportedly in the touji No. 137/5 and as such, in terms of the agreement entered into with the Agartala Municipal Council, the plaintiff is entitled to get the said stall, now marked as stall No. 00. According to him, the stall No. 01 is not constructed on his touji being No. 137/5. But that contention has been seriously disputed by the Agartala Municipal Council stating that the stall No. 00 is constructed on touji No. 177/5 and the touji No. 177/5 was under possession of the defendant No. 3. And after construction, the defendant No. 3 has handed over the said stall, constructed on touji No. 177/5, to the appellant. The plaintiff’s claim is entirely unreasonable. The very basis of the plaintiff’s claim is that in the southern boundary of his touji there situates a Government road and nothing in between. If there had been any touji on the southern boundary of the touji being No. 137/5 that ought to have been mentioned in the Agartala Municipal Council’s documents. But the plaintiff did not dispute the other boundaries of the touji being No. 137/5 vis-à-vis the stall No. 01 which has been allotted in favour of the plaintiff but the plaintiff has refused to accept its keys. 6. The defendant No. 3 by filing the written statement has contended that the plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable and if it is accepted he has to be given a touji with an area of (60 sq. ft. + 71 sq. ft.) = 131 sq. ft. This is the extent of ambiguity. The plaintiff in the suit has not questioned the creation of touji No. 177/5 in favour of defendant No. 3. It appears from Exbt. 3 having regard to the prayer of the plaintiff dated 07.03.1995, certain preliminary conditions were communicated to the plaintiff as the tenant. + 71 sq. ft.) = 131 sq. ft. This is the extent of ambiguity. The plaintiff in the suit has not questioned the creation of touji No. 177/5 in favour of defendant No. 3. It appears from Exbt. 3 having regard to the prayer of the plaintiff dated 07.03.1995, certain preliminary conditions were communicated to the plaintiff as the tenant. By the deed of agreement (Exbt. 4) it had been decided that ’the land posted in the aforesaid touji which has been allotted in the name of the second party will not be given to any third party either by lease or transfer.’ But in the said agreement, there is no clause as regards the construction of the shop and handing over the same to the plaintiff. However, that part of obligation has been admitted by the Agartala Municipal Council. The trial court while returning the finding held that the stall No. 00 is comprised in touji No. 137/5 without considering the aspect of the area or the other boundaries described in Exbt. 3 and Exbt. 4. The said finding has been affirmed by the first appellate court by the impugned judgment which has been challenged in this appeal filed under Section 100 of the C.P.C. While admitting the appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by the order 03.08.2004: (i) Whether the finding of the learned appellate court below that in terms of the agreement, the defendant No. 1 would construct building on the allotted land and hand over the same to the plaintiff, is based on no evidence? (ii) Whether the learned courts below placed the wrong burden on the defendant? (iii) Whether the findings of the learned courts below that the defendant No. 3 was inducted in the stall claimed by the plaintiff is perverse and contrary to the pleadings and documentary evidence? (iv) Whether the learned first appellate court has come to the wrong conclusion by ignoring a vital piece of evidence in Exbt. B? 7. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence obliging the respondents No. 2 & 3 for construction of the stall on touzi No. 137/5 and handing over the same to the plaintiff. B? 7. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence obliging the respondents No. 2 & 3 for construction of the stall on touzi No. 137/5 and handing over the same to the plaintiff. Apart that, the plaintiff, the respondent No. 1 herein had sought to take advantage from the description of the southern boundary without giving any primacy to the other boundaries. On the north or on the east or south of the stall No. 01 which has been allotted to the plaintiff, there exists the same boundary as described in Exbts. 3 & 4. But the plaintiff has neither related to those boundaries or the area of the allotted stall or the touji. He has been harping on the southern boundary which has been described by the Government road. At the time of describing the southern boundary it appears that an omission might have taken place. There was a kuccha hut belonging to Manmohan Debnath which has been taken over by the defendant No. 3 by dint of Exbt. B. But from proposal of the Agartala Municipal Council dated 16.09.2000 (part of Annexure-A series) it appears from the description of the touji that the northern boundary is shared with Biplab Debnath, the plaintiff. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has further submitted that if the claim of the plaintiff is accepted, then the plaintiff is entitled to both the touji Nos. 137/5 & 177/5. In aggregate those toujis would cover an area of 131 sq. ft., whereas the plaintiff’s claim is restricted to 60 sq. ft. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has further urged this Court is required to delve the purpose of construction of the stall No. 00 on touji No. 177/5. Moreover, if the plaintiff has suffered any damage, he ought to have asked for the damage making prayer in terms of Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act but no such prayer admittedly has been made by the plaintiff. Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act provides jurisdiction to provide compensation for any breach either in addition to or in subtraction of such performance. The breach as referred does include failure to perform the obligation set out by any lawful contract. Even the court may make provision for the compensation having not so asked for. Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act provides jurisdiction to provide compensation for any breach either in addition to or in subtraction of such performance. The breach as referred does include failure to perform the obligation set out by any lawful contract. Even the court may make provision for the compensation having not so asked for. Sub-Section 5 of Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act debars the jurisdiction of awarding compensation unless the plaintiff has claim such compensation either in his plaint or by way of amending the plaint at the subsequent stage where no specific performance can be directed by the court. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on a case of the apex court in Bondar Singh and others vs. Nihal Singh and others, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 161 for purpose of contending that if the findings of the subordinate courts on facts are contrary to the evidence on record and are perverse, such finding can be set aside by the High Court in appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. A High Court cannot shut its eyes to perverse findings of the courts below. In that case, the apex court has held that the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate court, were contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, perverse and the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the same resulting in the appeal being allowed and the suit being decreed. 8. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on another decision of the apex court in Ramlal and another vs. Phagua and others, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 168 where the apex court has held that even though the power of the court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact is fettered to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Such power has to be exercised sparingly. When the court is satisfied that the grave injustice has been done, it is not only the right but also the duty of the court to reverse the error and the injustice and to upset the finding notwithstanding the fact that it has been affirmed earlier. In no uncertain terms, the apex court has held as under: What really matters is whether the finding is a manifestly unreasonable and unjust one in the contest of the evidence on record. 9. In response to the submission made by Mr. In no uncertain terms, the apex court has held as under: What really matters is whether the finding is a manifestly unreasonable and unjust one in the contest of the evidence on record. 9. In response to the submission made by Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in this case, inasmuch the substantial question as formulated by the order dated 03.08.2004 requires fresh inquiry for having the fact for purpose of determination. Apart that, Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has submitted that without prejudice to what he has contended that from the description of the southern boundary of touji No. 137/5 it would be amply clear that the stall that has been constructed on the touji No. 137/5 shall be the first stall from the road. The respondents No. 2 & 3 have collusively created touji No. 177/5 in breach of the agreement. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has submitted that on the face of the concurrent findings, this Court may not be inclined to interfere with those findings inasmuch as that would be tantamount to reappraisal of the fact which does not come within the ambit of section 100 of the C.P.C. Hence, this appeal has been admitted mechanically. In State Bank of India & Others vs. S.N. Goyal, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92 , the apex court has expressed their concern on deciding the second appeals by re-appreciating the evidence and interfering with the findings on the fact, ignoring the questions of law. 10. On a close scrutiny of the records what has appeared before this Court is that even though the suit has been filed for purpose of declaration but in a sense it is a suit for specific performance. The suit has been based not on any agreement in writing, but on the oral contract. His claim is based on that since the stall No. 01 stands on touji No. 137/5 in the Lake Chowmuhani market he is entitled to get the said stall. In para-2 of the plaint it has been asserted that ’it was agreed in between the tenants and the A.M.C. that after the completion of the stalls the tenants would be inducted in their respective premises’. In para-2 of the plaint it has been asserted that ’it was agreed in between the tenants and the A.M.C. that after the completion of the stalls the tenants would be inducted in their respective premises’. The Agartala Municipal Council has denied that assertion. In para-7, however, the Agartala Municipal Council has stated that ’in reply, the defendant started that 25 Nos. of pucca shops as well as constructed on the allotted land on rental basis at Lake Chowmuhani market, out of these, keys of 24 stalls, handed over to rentee in the month of October, 2000 and key of stall of the plaintiff could not be handed over for non-appearance of the plaintiff at the time of handing over the keys of the said stalls, therefore, there is no any wrong and fault on the part of the answering defendants. So, allegations leveled and alleged by the plaintiff against the answering defendants are totally false, fictitious, baseless, fabulous, mala-fide and imaginary." It has been further stated by the Agartala Municipal Council in their written statement that they had constructed one additional pucca stall at the south side of the stall of the plaintiff and that stall was allotted to the defendant No. 3 against his touji and they have strongly denied that the stall No. 01 having constructed on touji No. 137/5 has been remarked as stall No. 00. They have further stated that the defendant No. 3 is in possession of the additional stall on touji No. 177/5. Despite that revelation, the plaintiff has not challenged the creation of touji No. 177/5 which is having the southern boundary with the Government road and the northern boundary with touji No. 137/5 posted in the name of the plaintiff. 11. There cannot be any doubt that both the courts below have committed perversity in appreciating the evidence inasmuch as the tenant, the plaintiff, does not have any right beyond his touji. When the Agartala Municipal Council has revealed that they had created a new touji on the southern boundary of the touji of the plaintiff, the plaintiff ought to have challenged the said creation of touji but without throwing any challenge to that action the building constructed on touji No. 177/5 has been claimed by the plaintiff. It has been brought on the record that boundaries of touji No. 137/5 have been maintained while constructing the stall No. 01. It has been brought on the record that boundaries of touji No. 137/5 have been maintained while constructing the stall No. 01. However, discrepancy has surfaced for the southern boundary. To obviate such discrepancy the courts below ought to have taken into consideration the respective touji area. There is no dispute that the stall No. 01 does contain an area of 60 sq. ft., equivalent to the area of touji No. 137/5. Hence on the strength of touji No. 137/5, the plaintiff cannot claim the stall No. 00 which has been constructed on touji No. 177/5 measuring 71 sq. ft. Therefore, the findings returned by the courts below are based on no evidence but on impermissible projections and as such, such findings are liable to be interfered with. That apart, the plaintiff has failed to prove the relation between the touji No. 137/5 and the stall No. 00 and thus, the plaintiff has failed to discharge his burden of proof. It was not the duty of the defendant to show that how he has been allotted touji No. 177/5 in the context of the suit. The impact of these observations or findings is that the plaintiff cannot claim the stall in which the defendant No. 3, the appellant herein has been inducted by the respondents No. 2 and 3. 12. Having held so, the impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.2004 is interfered with and set aside. As corollary thereto, the suit instituted by respondent No. 1 is dismissed. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. Draw the decree accordingly. Send the LCRs thereafter.