1. The suit brought by respondent was for restraining the appellants from obstructing him in raising a door across the lane in dispute, on the ground that the lane was his exclusive property.
2. The Subordinate Judge has found that the lane does not belong to the respondent.
3. Instead of dismissing the suit on that finding, he has declared that both plaintiff and defendants have rights of casement by long user over the lane and has decreed that neither party should interfere with the other in the exercise of this right.
4. In a suit brought to establish a right of ownership of property it is not competent to the court to enter into and decide the question of right to an easement over the lane, see Lalji Ratanji v. Gangaram Tuljaram, 2 B. H.. C. R, 176. Though as observed in Virasvami Gramini v. Ayyasvami Gramini, 1 M. H. C. R 477 the courts are bound to take into consideration all the rights of the parties to a suit, both legal and equitable, and give effect thereto by their decrees, as far as possible, they are not at liberty either to grant a relief not prayed for in the plaint or that does not naturally flow from the ground of claim as stated in the plaint.
5. Neither the pleadings nor the issues in the present case suggest a right of easement and the parties cannot be fairly presumed to have proceeded to trial with reference to such right.
6. We therefore set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif without prejudice however to plaintiff's right to establish his claim of easement, if any, by fresh suit.
7. Respondent will pay appellant's costs of this appeal and also in the Lower Appellate Court.