1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession, on declaration of the plaintiffs' title to a piece of land measuring 18 cottas. Out of this 18 cottas, the plaintiffs claimed khas possession of 16 cottas and possession through tenants of the remaining 2 cottas. The Munsif decreed the suit in part and the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs bad no cause of action. In our opinion the learned Subordinate Judge is perfectly right. The cause of action as set out in the plaint arose on the cutting of a khal on the 7th Sravan 1322. It is found that the khal in quest on was not cut on the 7th Sravan 1322. but was cut long ago in the year 1892, and also that it was not out by the 'defendants. It is contended on behalf of the appellants, and apparently was so found by the Munsif, that the denial of the plaintiffs' title in the written statement and the defendants' allegation that they had a right of easement gave the plaintiffs a cause of action. The statement made by the defendants in the written statement cannot in itself give a cause of action. In this connection it is sufficient to refer to the remarks of the Judicial Committee in the case of Chand Kopr v. Partab Singh 16 C. 98 at p. 102 (P.C.) : 15 I.A. 156 : 5 Sar. P.C.J. 243 : 12 Ind. Jur. 331 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 65: 'Now the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend on the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.' Here the ground set forth in the plaint for giving the cause of action was the cutting of the khal and as it entirely fails, it must be held that the plaintiffs have failed to show that they had any cause of action which would justify their bringing this suit.
2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.