is out of some other property in the suit survey number and not pertaining to her property, the plaintiff's title to her property, particularly, North-South measuring 91' cannot be upheld, merely because the property that had been conveyed under Ex.B10 to the third defendant also measures 91' NorthSouth. The findings of the first appellate court that inasmuch as the property of the third defendant is situated to the West of the plaintiff's property and as the third defendant's property is measuring 91' North-South, the plaintiff's property would also be only measuring North-South 91' cannot be accepted as such. The plaintiff having come forward with the case, claiming specific relief particularly on the basis of de jure possession and when the extent to which the plaintiff is entitled to, in particular North-South is seriously being disputed by the defendant, as rightly put forth by the defendant's counsel after seeing the defence raised in the written statement, the plaintiff should have amended the relief sought for by including the relief of declaration. However, the plaintiff has not chosen to seek the relief of declaration in spite of the defence put forth by the defendant. That apart, the plaintiff has also not cared to establish that her predecessor in title had the legal right to convey North-South 91' under Ex.A1 and in such circumstances, it could be seen that even the plaintiff has failed to establish that she is entitled to hold the property measuring North-South 91' as claimed by her.
