JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. RATH, J.

Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for permanent injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the owner in possession of the suit land. She purchased the suit land by means of a registered sale deed no.1723 of 1968. In M.C.No.133 of 1986, the land was demarcated by the Tahasildar on 28.8.1986 in presence of the defendant and her husband. The defendant filed an application before the Tahasildar, Berhampur for demarcation of the land. The Amin visited the spot and demarcated the land in presence of the parties. The defendant and her husband threatened to remove the fence from the suit land. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.

3. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant is that she acquired 70 x 7 sq.ft. under the instrument dated 9.1.1976. She has not encroached upon the suit land. She is not aware of the demarcation made by the Amin.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff has not established her title and possession over the suit land. The unsuccessful plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.57 of 1989 before the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur. Learned appellate court came to hold that there is boundary dispute between the parties. The plaintiff has not appended any map of the disputed property in compliance with the requirement of Order-VII Rule 3 C.P.C., but just a sketch thereof. Held so, it dismissed the appeal.

5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.1, 3 & 4 of the appeal memo. The same are :

“1. For that in view of the fact that the documents, under Exts.F, G and H which support the plaintiff’s case for demarcation of the suit land were filed on behalf of the defendant and marked on consent, the contents thereof are admissible and no further proof of the same is necessary.

3. For that in view of the fact that P.W.1 who is the husband of the plaintiff categorically stated that the suit land measuring 12’ x 7’ 6” is a portion of the land purchased by the plaintiff from Champa Bedatiani under Ext.1 the finding of the learned Munsif in para-13 of his judgment to the effect that there is no satisfactory evidence on record that the disputed property as per plaint schedule is within the land of the plaintiff purchased by her as per Ext.1 is perverse being contrary to the evidence on record.

And in such view of the matter the conclusion drawn is legally sustainable and any other reasonable person would have come to such conclusion under the fact and circumstances of the case.

4. For that whether the lower appellate court having not dealt with the issues already framed in the case, the evidence on record and the points raised in the memorandum of appeal has exercised its jurisdiction legally and properly, as conferred under the law as an appellate authority.”

6. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Mishra, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.B. Ratho, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Buddhiram Das, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, learned Advocate for the respondent.

7. Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that in the plaint the plaintiff has given the description of the property, which is sufficient to identify it. Learned appellate court has not discussed the evidence, either oral or documentary. The finding of the learned appellate court that the plaintiff has not complied with the requirement of Order 7 Rule 3 C.P.C. is perverse.

8. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the respondent submits that both the courts held that the defendant has not encroached upon any portion of the suit land. There is no perversity in the findings of the courts below.

9. Order 7 Rule 3 C.P.C.