Specific relief in the plaint is required before a possession decree can be granted against a defendant.

A decree for possession cannot be granted against a person against whom the plaint or amended plaint does not specifically seek relief. The pleading must clearly show that the defendant is liable to answer the plaintiff's demand and must state the relief claimed with specificity; otherwise, the court lacks basis to award that relief. The objection remained legally maintainable even at a later stage because it arose from admitted records and involved a pure question of law without further factual inquiry. On that reasoning, the decree against the appellant could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether a decree for possession could be granted against a defendant against whom no specific relief was claimed in the plaint or amended plaint.

Analysis: The amended plaint sought possession against the defendant generally, but the pleadings and prayers did not specifically claim relief against the original defendant no.2, whose successor was the appellant. Under Order VII, the plaint must show that the defendant is liable to answer the plaintiff's demand and must specifically state the relief claimed. A court cannot grant relief against a person against whom no relief has been sought. The objection was maintainable even at a later stage because it arose from admitted records and involved a pure question of law not requiring further factual inquiry.

Conclusion: The decree against the appellant could not be sustained, and the High Court's view on that point was erroneous.

---