JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—This is a plaintiff’s second appeal against the judgement and decree dated 2.3.1977. The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit property and also for restraining the defendants from digging earth etc. from a certain portion of the property in dispute. They claimed title and possession over the property in dispute on the basis of the fact that it was in their possession since before the abolition of Zamidari and so it had vested in them as land appurtenant to their abadi under Section 9 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. They had claimed that despite the fact that the respondents-defendants had never been in possession and had no concern over the disputed plot yet they were disturbing their peaceful possession. The Trial Court framed certain issues and while deciding issue No. 4, though it found that the plaintiff had been dispossessed from a certain portion of the property in dispute and that the defendants had established their possession over it, decreed the suit. That apart, the trial Court granted the plaintiffs the relief of possession over such portions of the property from which they had been dispossessed. The First Appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court chiefly on the ground that despite the fact that there was no relief for possession, the trial Court had granted the same. 2. The plaintiff-appellant submitted that once it was found that the plaintiff was in possession at the time of the filing of the suit then dispossession during pendency of the suit could not disable the Trial Court from putting the plaintiff back in possession even if there was no prayer. In this regard, he placed reliance on Mir Bazlay Ali v. Jagirdar Nirkhy Mir Mahammad Ali, 2006 AP 131 and Hari Nandan Agrawal and another v. S.N. Pandita and others, AIR 1975 A 48 and has submitted that after filing of the suit the plaintiff’s could always be put back in possession under Section 151 of the C.P.C., even when there was no prayer for being put back into possession. 3. 3. In reply, the counsel for the respondent-defendant has submitted that once the plaintiff was found to have been out of possession then he had to amend his plaint so as to include the relief of possession and only then could the suit have proceeded and consequently decreed for the relief of possession. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law as to whether when the plaintiff’s suit had been decreed by the trial Court with a finding that he was the owner of the land and charan etc. then could it be dismissed as a whole and be treated as barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,1963, because the defendants had illegally established their possession on the property during the pendency of the suit. 5. Admittedly, as has been found by the trial Court, the appellant was dispossessed from a major portion of the property and he had not claimed any relief for possession. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction can only be issued if the plaintiff is found to be in possession, specially when the title is based on possession. This is what has been laid in Vittan Devi and others v. Ranvijay Singh and another, (1997) 3 ALR 16. The two decisions which the appellant has placed before this Court are decisions wherein it has been held that if during the continuation of the suit, a temporary injunction was violated and the plaintiff had been dispossessed, then the Court could always put the plaintiff back in possession and restore the status quo ante, using its inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. In the case at hand this is not in issue. It has not been alleged by the plaintiff-appellant that he was dispossessed in violation of any temporary injunction. 6. The plaintiff claimed his title on the basis of his possession and had submitted that the land had vested in him by virtue of Section 9 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The defendant had denied the plaintiff’s possesory title and, thus, if the trial Court had found that the plaintiff was out of possession then it could not have put him in possession, without, his making a prayer for being put back in possession. The defendant had denied the plaintiff’s possesory title and, thus, if the trial Court had found that the plaintiff was out of possession then it could not have put him in possession, without, his making a prayer for being put back in possession. It mattered little that the Trial Court had found the title of the plaintiff correct. The First Appellate Court rightly allowed the First Appeal. The suit had to be dismissed for the want of a proper prayer. 7. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.