JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Gite, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. Aggrieved by the decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.9/2004, original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 71/1996 have preferred this Second Appeal. 3. The only ground, on which the impugned decree has been assailed, is the ground no.11 of the Appeal Memo, which reads as under : "11. The Judgment and Order passed by the Ld. District Court is perverse to the record and therefore, is illegal, improper and is against the documents on record and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside." 3. Facts: Suit property is Gat No.36. Plaintiffs sought, a declaration of their title and injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing and interfering their possession over the suit land. Respondents no. 13 and 14 (original defendants no. 13 and 14) had filed a counter-claim and asserted their right and share in the suit Gat No.36. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2nd January, 2004 decreed the suit and rejected the counterclaim of the defendants no. 13 and 14. Aggrieved by the decree, the original defendants no.1 to 8 had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 5/2004; whereas, defendants no. 13 and 14 have preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.9/2004. The Appellate Court dismissed Appeal No. 5/2004. However, Appeal No.9/2004 was allowed. Resultantly, decree of the trial Court, was modified as follows : "(i)That the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.9 to 12 are declared to be owners of north side V2 portion out of Gat No.36, situated at Gajarwadi and defendant Nos.1 to 8, either by themselves or through anybody on their behalf are permanently restrained from disturbing possession of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.9 to 12 over north side V2 portion of suit property. (ii) It is further ordered and declared that defendant Nos.13 and 14 by name Pandharinath Pund and Vishnu Pund are owners of south side V2 portion out of Gat No. 36 and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.9 to 12 are ordered to deliver possession of said south side V2 portion to defendant Nos.13 and 14, within 3 months from today i.e. on or before 5/8/2014. (iii) Separate enquiry into past and future mesne profits is ordered to be held under Order 20 Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code." 4. (iii) Separate enquiry into past and future mesne profits is ordered to be held under Order 20 Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code." 4. It is against the decree in Regular Civil Appeal No.9/2004, this Appeal is preferred. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant, would contend that the Appellate Court erred in granting, the relief beyond pleadings in the counter-claim. It is submitted that, the defendants no. 13 and 14 did not seek a declaration of the title in Suit Gat no.36. It is submitted, in absence of the pleadings, the Appellate C0ourt has declared the defendants no. 13 and 14 as owners of the southern portion of Gat No.36. In support of the contentions, learned Counsel, has taken me through the plaint, judgment of the trial Court, Appellate Court and the issues/points framed therein. The learned Counsel has also taken me through the Written Statement filed by defendants no. 13 and 14 and particularly relied on para-9 of the Written Statement. Submission is that, the defendants no. 13 and 14 would assert their interest in the suit land as the 'tenants' and not as its owners. Learned Counsel, in support of his submissions, relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar Versus. Nilima Mandal and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 491 . 6. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel on the other hand, would support the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.9/2004. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties. Facts discerned from Evidence-Pleadings : 8. That father of the plaintiffs, Karbhari Gangaram Pund and father of defendants no. 13 and 14, Kashiram Abaji Pund had purchased the suit Gat No.36 from the predecessor-in-title of defendants no.1 to 8. The sale-deed is at Exhibit-102. This fact is not in dispute. In fact, this fact is pleaded in plaint, para-2. It reads as follows; Admittedly, Khandu Maske, is the predecessor-in-title of the defendants no.1 to 8. He had filed Regular Civil SuitNo.4/1983 against the father of the plaintiff in respect of Suit Gat No.36. In the said suit, written statement was filed by the plaintiffs, wherein they admitted that the suit land was purchased, jointly by their father, Karbhari Pund with Kashiram Pund (father of defendants no. 13 and 14). 9. He had filed Regular Civil SuitNo.4/1983 against the father of the plaintiff in respect of Suit Gat No.36. In the said suit, written statement was filed by the plaintiffs, wherein they admitted that the suit land was purchased, jointly by their father, Karbhari Pund with Kashiram Pund (father of defendants no. 13 and 14). 9. Thus, the pleadings in the plaint, written statement and the sale-deed at Exhibit-102 has established a fact, that the suit property was jointly owned by father of the plaintiffs and father of defendants no. 13 and 14, vide the sale-deed (at Exhibit-102), which has not been questioned by the appellants-plaintiffs. Thus, in consideration of the facts, the learned Appellate Court has correctly held that, defendants no. 13 and 14 are the owners of half southern portion of Gat No.36. In the backdrop of the aforestated "admitted fact", reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bachhaj (supra) is of no assistance to the appellants. In the cited judgment, plaintiff's suit for declaration of title, on the sale-deed dated 29th December, 1962, was negated by the first Appellate Court. However, in Second Appeal, High Court held that, the plaintiffs had made out a case for grant of relief based on easementary right of passage, in respect of the suit property. In context of these facts, it was observed in para-18 of the judgment that, "A perusal of the plaint clearly shows that entire case of the plaintiffs was that they were the owners of the suit property and that the first defendant had encroached upon it. The plaintiffs had not pleaded, even as an alternative case, that they were entitled to an easementary right of passage over the schedule property." and held in para-13, thus : "10. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. Therefore, the court cannot, on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant some other relief. The question before a court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the court could not be granted. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief, and when defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief." However, in this case, a plaintiff himself had pleaded and admitted that suit land was purchased by Karbhari Pund (their father) and Kashiram Pund (father of defendants no. 13 and 14) vide sale-deed Exhibit-102. As such, the ratio laid down in the cited judgment, has no application to the facts of the case in hand. 10. In view of the facts of the case and for the reasons stated, the Appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Appeal is dismissed. 11. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 1341 of 2015 becomes infructous and does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed of.