JUDGMENT 1. - This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 15.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant's S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5021 of 1996 and affirmed the order of Board of Revenue. 2. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of his khatedari rights over the land in dispute measuring about 6 bigha. The appellant pleaded that he is khatedar of the land but Dan Bihari (defendant No. 1) got the same mutated in his name and thereafter, sold it to Balveer Singh (defendant No. 2) on 01.06.1981. Defendants Dan Bihari and Balveer Singh in their reply denied that appellant was khatedar of the land. Dan Bihari (defendant No. 1), also averred that the land was his ancestral property. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Deeg Distt. Bharatpur after examining the pleadings and material brought on record vide order dated 03.03.1987 dismissed the appellant's suit. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur which was allowed vide order dated 04.09.1993. Dan Bihari and Balveer Singh challenged the order dated 04.09.1993 in second appeal before the Board of Revenue which vide order dated 08.08.1996 set aside the order dated 04.09.1993 and restored the order dated 03.03.1987 of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The appellant then filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5021 of 1996 and the learned Single Judge by the impugned order has dismissed the same. 3. The appellant relied upon will dated 29.03.1961 executed by Hari Pyari in his favour Harpyari was sister of appellant's father. But since the appellant did not plead anywhere in the suit that his khatedari rights were based upon the will, the Sub-Divisional Officer and Board of Revenue, Bharatpur did not believe him that he succeeded khatedari rights on the basis of will. Apart from the will, the appellant could not produce any revenue record to substantiate his khatedari rights over the land in dispute. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited the decision of Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Ors. (AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1103) wherein it is held that even when a case is not specifically pleaded can still be considered by the Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited the decision of Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Ors. (AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1103) wherein it is held that even when a case is not specifically pleaded can still be considered by the Court. This settled principle of law cannot be questioned but it is also true that such a case can be considered by the Court only when the pleadings contain the necessary averments to make out a particular case and issue is framed covering the question involved. In the present case, the appellant did not plead at all that his khatedari rights were based upon any will. The defendants, therefore, could not comment upon the legality and validity of will dated 29.03.1961 executed by Harpyari. In the result, no issue was framed on the question of legality of will. The case of Bachhaj Nahar (supra), therefore, does not help the appellant. 5. After hearing the respective learned counsel for the parties, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Board of Revenue, Bharatpur. The findings of these revenue authorities as well as of the learned Single Judge that appellant failed to prove his khatedari rights are well-founded and unassailable. 6. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******