Court should have appropriately moulded the relief sought for and disposed of the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and on the other hand, inasmuch as the first appellate Court had, by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dismissed the plaintiffs', and it is her further contention that the judgement and decree of the first appellate Court need reversal. However, the abovesaid argument, in my considered opinion, does not merit acceptance. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs barely for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs had laid the suit claiming that they are in possession and enjoyment of 0.50 cents of land in the suit property. That fact has not been established. No doubt, the materials placed on record go to intimate that the plaintiffs are in the possession and enjoyment of 5 cents of land. However, when the suit survey number is found to be consisting of a total extent of 1.15 acres, it is for the plaintiffs to establish as to where exactly the 5 cents, which is alleged to be in their possession, is located. With reference to the abovesaid position, there is no material forthcoming on the part of the plaintiffs. Merely because, the facts disclosed that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of 5 cents of land in the suit survey number, on that basis, we cannot grant the relief in favour of the plaintiffs by moulding the prayer sought for by the plaintiffs. As rightly determined by
