The sufficiency of the description of the suit property for proper identification is crucial in determining the maintainability of a suit.

JUDGMENT

RAGHUBIR DASH, J.

1. This Second Appeal is in challenge of reversing judgment and decree dated 13.08.2004 and 27.08.2004, respectively, passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Jeypore in R.F.A. No. 10 of 2004 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2000 and 18.08.2000, respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jeypore in T.S. No. 33 of 1995.

2. The Appellant is the plaintiff and the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and deceased Respondent No. 5 are defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in the suit.

3. The suit is for declaration of plaintiff’s title over plaint schedule ‘B’ property and for recovery of possession of schedule B(a) to B(d) of the plaint. It is not in dispute that plaintiff and late Debraj Pradhan, father of D-1 to D-3 and husband of D-4 and D-5, are two brothers. Their other two brothers are Rusia and Dinabandhu. Rusia separated from the joint family in 1961 and Dinabandhu died unmarried.

4. The plaint story, in short, is that the plaintiff and father of D-1 and D-3 were separate in both mess and property. Plaint schedule ‘A’ property is plaintiff’s absolute property which he has purchased from his uncle Raghunath Pradhan and aunt Srimati Pradhan under a Registered Sale Deed dated 28.09.1973 on payment of a consideration of Rs.2,000/-. After acquisition of the land under the sale deed the plaintiff constructed a house on a portion thereof and the rest portion is being used as thrashing floor, cattle shed etc. In a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. (M.C. No. 38 of 1987) before the Executive Magistrate, Jeypore which was between plaintiff and D-1, a compromise was arrived at and on the basis of the compromise petition the proceeding was dropped. In that compromise petition the defendants have admitted that plaintiff has got absolute right, title, interest and possession over the plaint schedule ‘A’ property. D-1 to D-3, who were then in permissive possession of plaint schedule B(a) to B(c) property which are part of the plaint schedule ‘A’ property, agreed to vacate the same within two years. But after expiry of said period when the plaintiff asked them to vacate, they refused to do so. Hence, the suit.

5. D-1 to D-3 in their joint written statement have taken the stand that in the year 1971 their father late Debaraj and the plaintiff Shyam Sundar were separate in respect of their agricultural land but there was no separation in respect of their homestead properties. Their homestead property, including the thrashing floor, cattle shed etc. was held jointly. When matter stood thus, their father Shyam Sundar was murdered. D-1 to D-3 then being minors and D-4 and D-5 the bereaved widows, plaintiff took charge of the defendants and their properties and managed the affairs of the family by looking after landed properties of the family. In the year 1986 there was some dissention. The plaintiff called for a Punch. An agreement was signed with the intervention of gentlemen. The defendants were given to understand that in the agreement the plaintiff admitted that the suit properties including other properties recorded in the names of D4, D-5 and plaintiff’s wife were joint family properties. So far the compromise petition filed in the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr. P.C. is concerned, it is contended that the defendants have never compromised any dispute before the learned Executive Magistrate. The defendants were not aware of any such proceeding as has been alleged. The compromise petition, if any, is a fraudulent and created document. It is said to have been signed by the D-3 though he was then a minor. It is also contended by the defendants that the plaintiff has failed to give correct description of the suit property in the plaint.

6. D-4 and D-5 jointly filed W.S. stating therein, inter alia, that at the time of purchase of ‘A’ schedule property, plaintiff and defendants were living in jointness and plaintiff being the karta of the family the said purchase was made in his nam