14.Furthermore, when the defendant has disputed the plaintiff's claim of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property as described in the plaint, particularly, the lane portion in dispute as rightly put forth by the defendant's counsel, the plaintiff should have endeavoured to seek the relief of declaration of title as regards the suit property or at least as regards the lane portion in dispute one way or the other. Despite the stout denial of her claim of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property in entirety by the defendant, for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, she has not endeavoured to institute the suit claiming the relief of declaration of title to the same, and when as above noted, the plaintiff has failed to establish her claim of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property as described in the plaint. On the above score alone, the plaintiff's suit should fail. Resultantly, it has to be held that inasmuch as the plaintiff has no right of possession and enjoyment of the suit property as described in the plaint, particularly, the lane portion, she is unable to place any document evidencing the same and would endeavour to establish her case by placing absolute reliance upon the commissioner's report and plan however, as above noted, when the commissioner's report and plan could not be the bass for determining the claim of the possession of the rival parties of the property in dispute one way or the other and furthermore, the physical features as noted by the commissioner at the time of the inspection of the properties concerned do not denote in any manner that it is only the plaintiff, who owns the disputed lane portion inclusive of the fence, the standing trees etc., the Courts below are found to have totally erred in granting the relief in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for, particularly, without the plaintiff in any manner establishing her claim of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property as described in the plaint.
