JUDGMENT : V.G. Bisht, J. 1. By this appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant (original defendant) has assailed impugned judgment and order dated 08.10.2004 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Washim allowing the Regular Civil Appeal No.56/2003 filed by respondent (plaintiff). The respondent (plaintiff) had impugned the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2003 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Washim thereby dismissing the suit for permanent injunction. 2. The parties in this judgment are described as per their original status in the proceedings before the learned trial Judge. The appellant namely Dhondu Ganpat Solunke was the original defendant whereas the respondent namely Dashrath Tukaram Suroshe herein was the original plaintiff. 3. The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the Second Appeal are as under:- Gat No.25, admeasuring 49 R situated at village Nagthana, Taluka and District Washim (“Suit Property” for short) originally belonged to the defendant. The defendant sold the suit property to the plaintiff on 30.04.1991 and since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit property. The defendant has no right title or interest in the suit property. 4. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant however, threatened the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff apprehended the danger of being dispossessed at the hands of defendant. It is alleged that the defendant threatened the plaintiff on 30.06.1998 of dire consequences and even threatened to remove the crops from the suit property. The plaintiff in the above circumstances filed the suit for perpetual injunction. 5. The defendant resisted the suit by filing his written statement (Exh.45) and denied the boundaries of the suit properties. He further denied of having sold the suit property to the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 30.04.1991 and putting him in possession. He further denied of alleged threats of dispossession and removing of crops. 6. According to defendant, the plaintiff is engaged in money lending business without any valid licence. The transactions between him and the plaintiff was that of money transactions. As the defendant was in need of moneys for the marriage of his daughter, a nominal sale deed was executed in respect of suit property with an understanding on agreement that on the repayment of loan of Rs.10,000/- the plaintiff will reconvey the suit property in his favour. 7. As the defendant was in need of moneys for the marriage of his daughter, a nominal sale deed was executed in respect of suit property with an understanding on agreement that on the repayment of loan of Rs.10,000/- the plaintiff will reconvey the suit property in his favour. 7. According to defendant, the boundaries given of the suit property are totally incorrect and those boundaries are in fact in relation to Gat No.12 which is in his possession. The suit is only filed with a view to harass and trouble him and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, learned trial judge framed as many as six issues and after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties was pleased to dismiss the suit. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28. 01.2003 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Washim, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No.56/2003. The learned First Appellate Court also framed points for his determination and was pleased to allow the appeal. Learned First Appellate Court was pleased to declare the plaintiff as owner of field of Gat No.12 admeasuring 46 R situated at Village Nagthana District Washim. The defendant herein dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court has filed the present Second Appeal. 10. By an order dated 17.09.2007 this Court admitted the Second Appeal on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court and granting declaration of ownership of the respondent/plaintiff over the Gat No.12 admeasuring 46 R. when the plaintiff had not sought for a declaration and had filed a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction and had also claimed to be the owner of Gat No.25 and not Gat No.12?” 11. Shri Onkar Ghare, learned counsel, appearing for the defendant, at the very out set, submits that description of the suit property and more particularly the boundaries given by the plaintiff were seriously disputed by the defendant. Learned trial Judge has extensively dwelt upon this aspect and according to learned counsel rightly came to the conclusion that the suit property has not been properly described in as much as the boundaries given by the plaintiff do not tally with the revenue record and the commissioner’s report. 12. Learned trial Judge has extensively dwelt upon this aspect and according to learned counsel rightly came to the conclusion that the suit property has not been properly described in as much as the boundaries given by the plaintiff do not tally with the revenue record and the commissioner’s report. 12. Learned counsel supported the judgment of the trial Court and heavily came down on the impugned judgment and order of the First Appellate Court on the ground that the learned First Appellate Court committed grave error in law and facts by declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of the Gat No.12 which was never asked for. According to learned counsel, the suit was simpliciter for perpetual injunction. No relief for declaration was sought and despite that learned First Appellate Court committed illegality by granting relief of declaration and that too in respect of different property which was not subject matter of the plaintiffs suit. Thus, on these grounds the appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the First Appellate Court and restoring the judgment and order of the trial Judge, argued learned counsel. Learned counsel for the defendant has also placed reliance in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and others (2008) 4 SCC 594 , and judgment of this Court in Second Appeal No.5 of 2009 decided on 11.11.2019. 13. Shri Y. Chougule, learned counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, supported the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court by submitting that the order being well reasoned the same does not need interference at the hands of this Court. According to learned counsel, there being no merit in the appeal same is liable to be dismissed with costs. 14. Before going into substantial question of law framed by this Court, to my mind, equally important question which crops up is whether on the facts, the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction. 15. In the case of Jharkhand State Housing Board vs Shri Didar Singh (2019) 17 SCC 692 the Hon’ble Apex Court made the following observations “11. 15. In the case of Jharkhand State Housing Board vs Shri Didar Singh (2019) 17 SCC 692 the Hon’ble Apex Court made the following observations “11. It is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court that in each and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff, it is not necessary that in all those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to the title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction”. 16. Similarly in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and others (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court explained the general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief. Following are the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court:- “13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly. 13.1. Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner. 13.2. Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession. 13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto an there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. 13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto an there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction”. 17. Having regard to the above principles, I may note from the plaint averments that plaintiff had specifically claimed his title over suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 30.04.1991 executed by defendant in his favour and also had categorically and specifically pleaded that the defendant has no right title or interest in the suit property. As against this the defendant in his written statement dated 05.11.1999 (Exh. 45) clearly and specifically denied of having sold the suit property to the plaintiff under a sale deed dated 30.04.1991 and according to him it is he, who is in possession of the suit property. 18. Thus, from the written statement, it is more than clear that defendant had not only denied the transfer of suit property in favour of plaintiff under a sale deed dated 30.04.1991 but by way of his defence claimed unto himself the ownership and possession of the suit property. Needless to say, the defendant had raised serious dispute or cloud over the plaintiff’s title. In this situation, it was incumbent on the part of plaintiff, keeping in mind the averments made in the written statement, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into it for declaration and injunction. However, that was not done. 19. Therefore, on this ground alone, and for want of declaratory relief, the plaintiff could not have maintained the suit for bare injunction. 20. This brings me to the question of law framed by this Court. However, that was not done. 19. Therefore, on this ground alone, and for want of declaratory relief, the plaintiff could not have maintained the suit for bare injunction. 20. This brings me to the question of law framed by this Court. The plaintiff had approached the trial Court with a very specific case of the ownership of Gat No.25 and the boundaries given by him on the plaint which according to him, is in consonance with boundaries of the suit property given in the sale deed dated 30.04.1991 while ascertaining the allegation of illegal interference in the suit property, the learned trial Judge considered revenue map (Exh.101) and 7/12 extracts (Exh.93, 94, 95 and 97) pertaining to suit property i.e. Gat No.25. Since the defendant had seriously objected about the description of the suit property, the learned trial Judge all the while was more vigilant and took pains to go through revenue records and also through the commissioner report (Exh. 23). On analyzing revenue record and appreciating the commissioner report, learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the boundaries of Gat No.25 were entirely different than what was given in the plaint. Rather the boundaries reflected through 7/12 extract revenue map and the Court Commissioner are in consonance with each other and are rather in respect of Gat No.12 which admittedly was not the subject matter of the plaintiff’s suit. Despite that, the observations of learned trial Judge show that the plaintiff was bent upon and his insistence continued to the effect that boundaries mentioned in the sale deed and plaint are correct. In my considered view, the learned trial Judge was justified in going through whole revenue record including the Court commissioner report and rightly came to the conclusion that the description of the suit property was not proper. This being so, there was no perversity in the finding of learned trial Judge that since there was mis-description of the suit property there could not have been the question of interference in the plaintiff’s possession over the suit property. 21. Having said so and noted, I am surprised to note that learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Washim ventured to go into the questions which were not pleaded and which were not the subject matter of any issue and unnecessarily went on declaring the plaintiff as owner of field Gat No.12 and consequently injuncted the defendant. 21. Having said so and noted, I am surprised to note that learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Washim ventured to go into the questions which were not pleaded and which were not the subject matter of any issue and unnecessarily went on declaring the plaintiff as owner of field Gat No.12 and consequently injuncted the defendant. There was absolutely no discussion as to the appreciation and analysis made by the learned trial Judge in respect of boundaries of the suit property i.e. Gat No.25. Learned Adhoc Additional District Judge granted relief which was never pleaded and asked for. More over learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Washim was also oblivious of the fact that there was inherent pitfalls in the plaint averments in as much as the plaintiff had not sought the relief for declaration and on that ground alone he ought to have upheld the dismissal of suit at the hands of learned trial Judge. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, I answer the question of law in the negative. Thus, I am inclined to allow the appeal. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) Judgment and order of learned Adhoc Additional District Judge dated 08.10.2004 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.56 of 2003 is quashed and set aside and the suit is dismissed. (iii) Parties to bear their respective costs.