.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. This suit is filed for partition, rendition of accounts etc by the plaintiff Ms. Saroj Salkan. Plaintiff is the daughter of late Gen. Budh Singh. Defendant nos.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of late Sh. Anup Singh who is the late son of late Gen. Budh Singh. Defendant no.6 in the suit is the sister of the plaintiff and late Sh. Anup Singh and the daughter of late Gen. Budh Singh.

2. The counsel for the plaintiff argues that the suit properties stated in para 2 of the plaint are ancestral properties except the property no.C-38, Anand Niketan, New Delhi and which is said to have been purchased from the sale of the ancestral properties. Para 2 of the plaint detailing the properties which are said to be ancestral properties or acquired from the funds of the sale of the ancestral properties, reads as under:-

“2. That Late Gen. Budh Singh was a resident of Barota, Sonepat, Haryana. The family owned substantial ancestral property. The details of the property are described in the List of Documents. However, broadly there were a) Barota (72 acres approx. with farm house) b) 11 acres at Kalupur, (Sonepat) c) Eight bighas of Diary Plot at Sonepat d) Bhatgaon (30 acres) (House, Outhouses, Orchard) e) House No.C-38, Anand Niketan, New Delhi However, plaintiff seeks leave of this Hon’ble Court to permit her to include other properties if they come to know about it after filing the suit. The above said properties are ancestral properties that had been with the family for generations and/or were acquired out of the funds of the joint family, of which the late Gen. Budh Singh was the karta.”

3. At the outset, I may note that so far as the properties (b) and (c) are concerned being 11 acres of land at Kalupur (Sonepat) and eight bighas of diary plot at Sonepat, the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine because no details whatsoever of these lands are given. For a cause of action in law to exist for filing of a suit for the land or immovable property, it is necessary that the lands have to be described specifically with respect to specific revenue numbers or municipal numbers. This is required obviously because only for a really existing property that a suit will lie whether for partition or otherwise and for a property to exist there must be such references in the plaint that it has to be identified. Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as per its sub-Clause (e) requires stating of a complete cause of action, and for an immoveable property complete cause of action exists only if the complete details of the properties are mentioned in the plaint or at least after reasonably mentioning in the plaint, documents are filed to show the exact description and the area of the property alongwith revenue numbers or municipal numbers. Spirit of Order VII Rule 1(e) CPC is also found in Order VI Rule 4 CPC which requires necessary particulars to be given in a pleading wherever so required. Rule 3 of Order VII CPC clinches the issue as it requires that where the subject matter of a suit is an immoveable property, the plaint shall contain description of the property sufficiently to identify the same with reference to the boundaries or the numbers in a record of settlement or survey. The defendants have denied that any such properties as stated in para 2(b) and (c) of the plaint have at all existed, and accordingly in view of the fact that there are no requisite details whatsoever existing/pleaded in the suit plaint or description of properties shown by means of the documents filed with respect to these alleged properties existing at Kalupur and Sonepat, the suit plaint is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed for these properties.

4. Now there would remain three properties which would be the subject matter of the partition suit. The first property is property stated in para 2(a) at Barota, the second property stated in para 2(d) is at Bhatgaon and the third property is House No.C-38, Anand Niketan, New Del