JUDGMENT

1. These appellants were the defendants in the suit filed by the respondents for issuance of perpetual injunction restraining these defendants from entering into the suit space.

2. For the sake of convenience to avoid confusion and for clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arrayed in the court below.

Plaintiffs case is that in the year 1971 he had purchased land measuring Ac. 0.08 decimals from Sabik plot No. 588, plot Sabik Khata No. 21 and two years thereafter he constructed a building on the portion of the said land. It is stated that he had left a space of 12 feet width on the western side of his building and that is the suit space. This was being used as space for the plaintiff goes to the backside of his building. It is further case of the plaintiff that over this space, he had a terrace of 3 ft. width, a window projection (taja) and also a mini well. The plaintiff had constructed compound wall on all the sides of the suit plot. As at one point of time there was resistance from the side of the defendants by not allowing the plaintiffs workers to go for white washing of the building by standing over the said suit space, the plaintiff had to approach this Court claiming relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Alternatively, it is stated that the plaintiff has been in possession of this suit space for more than 25 years and thus has perfected title by adverse possession and the title of the defendants, if any, should extinguished long since.

3. The defendant No.1 while traversing the plaint averments and denying the claim of the plaint has advanced a counter claim stating that boundary wall of the defendants running adjacent to the building of the plaintiff was broken by the plaintiff. So, he prayed for issuance of permanent injunction against the plaintiff from not creating any disturbance like that any more.

4. The trial Court having framed 11 nos. of issues, has answered issue no. 5 & 9 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and has practically gone to decree the suit and dismiss the counter claim.

An appeal being carried by the• defendants has not yielded any fruitful result. The learned Additional District Judge at it appears from the judgment has further gone to analyze the evidence on record in judging sustainability of the finding rendered by the trial Court on issue no. 5 & 9. The lower appellate Court has made an elaborate discussion of evidence and having gone for critical analysis of the same at his level has concurred with the finding of the trial Court.

Thus it is a case where both the Courts have rendered concurrent finding that the suit space was used by the plaintiff and the defendants as no cause of action to file the counter claim. So, the factual aspects presented by the plaintiff with regard to leaving of space beyond his building, putting compound wall, extending the projection of the window and a terrace with digging of mini well and using it as passage have been concurrently found to have been proved.

5. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

1) Whether in the absence of specific description of suit schedule property in the plaint, the Courts below have rightly passed the decree for permanent injunction and if so whether such a decree is executable?

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff has not described the property in question in the plaint in accordance with the provision of Order -7 Rule-3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in as much as there is no reference to the boundaries, no exact measurement of the suit space in relation to the settlement map etc. therefore, he contends that the Courts below have erred in law in decreeing the suit and the decree that has been passed is vague and is executable.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the finding of both the Courts are absolutely flawless being based upon proper appreciation of evidence as regards the suit sp