The main legal point established in the judgment is that the description of the property in the plaint must be sufficient to identify the property, and any error or misdescription in the boundaries cannot affect the suit or the decree passed in the suit.

Rajiv Sharma, Judge:

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 03.05.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 35-CA/13 of 2001.

2. ‘Key facts’ necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’ for the sake of convenience) filed a suit for possession on the basis of title against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’ for the sake of convenience). According to the plaintiffs, they are owners of the land comprised in Khata No. 80, Khatauni No. 145 min, Khasra No. 191 to the extent of 1 biswa, total area measuring 9.8 bighas, situated in Village Rampur Majri, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. Out of the land in question, 0-1 bigha is under Abadi and chhappar is existing on the same as per the revenue record. The defendants occupied the chhappar with the consent of the plaintiffs and installed an electric meter in the same about 11 years back. They are residing in the chhappar and the plaintiff are now in need of the same for personal use. They have started digging the foundations for construction of new structure around the chhappar and inner side of chhappar. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land. The plaintiffs have made several requests to the defendants to hand over the chhappar. It is specifically averred in paragraph No. 4 of the plaint that the chhappar be got vacated from the possession of the defendants and decree for possession on the basis of title be granted in favour of the plaintiffs alongwith decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising construction on the suit land. It is in these circumstances, the plaintiffs have filed suit praying for a decree for possession on the basis of title with a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from digging and raising any construction in the suit land and further the possession of the chhappar in question be given to the plaintiffs and the defendants be dis-possessed from the chhappar and a decree in this behalf be passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. According to them, they forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs on 15.06.1975 and thereafter raised chhappar. They occupied four biswas of land denoted by Khasra No. 191/1. They raised mango trees, neem trees, amrood trees and mulberry trees in July, 1975. According to the defendants they were in possession of the suit property, i.e., 4 biswas of land by way of house, cowshed and plants. They also claimed their possession being adverse for more than 12 years. One of the defendants Phool Singh died during the pendency of the suit before the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib and his legal representatives were brought on record.

4. Learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib framed the issues on 06.11.1999. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed for possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 191/1, measuring 4 biswas, situated in Mauza Rampur Majri, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., as shown in Tatima Ex. DW-4/A.

5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 15.02.2001, the defendants filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. He allowed the same on 03.05.2002. Hence this Regular Second Appeal.

6. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 21.06.2002:

“Whether the learned District Judge has misconstrued, misinterpreted the plaint and ignored admissible evidence by way of Tatima, Ex.DW-4/A in accepting the 1st Appeal and dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs?”

7. Mr. K.S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the appellants has supported the judgment and decree, dated 15.02.2001, passed by the learned trial Court. According to him, the