As per case facts, Ongdi Sherpa, the plaintiff, filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction over two plots, claiming inheritance through a partition and possession maintained by ... a 'kuthia'. The defendants, relatives, counter-claimed absolute ownership by their ancestor and asserted their continuous possession through their own 'kutiadar', accusing the plaintiff of trespass and destruction of cardamom plants. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding defendants in possession and questioning the plaintiff's title, a decision upheld by the Appellate Court. The question arose whether the learned First Appellate Court erred by ignoring material evidence from Court Witness No.1, Surja Maya Sunar, regarding possession. Finally, the High Court determined that the plaintiff failed to prove possession, and the court witness's testimony was contradictory and cautiously examined. Since the plaintiff did not seek the consequential relief of possession despite being out of it and his title being under a cloud, the suit was not maintainable under the Specific Relief Act, and thus the appeal was dismissed.