A suit for possession of immovable property must contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, as required by Order 7, Rule 3 of the CPC.

( 1 ) THIS appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- (I) "whether in the absence of requirements of Order VII, Rule 3 of code of Civil Procedure whereby full particulars and identity disputed portion is not mentioned in the plaint, suit is liable to be decreed?" (ii) Whether in the absence of map of demarcation and proof of report of demarcation the Appellate court was right in considering the document of Panchanama?" (iii) "whether the suit of plaintiff was maintainable without impleading the State of M. P. as provided under Order 1, Rule 3-B of Code of civil Procedure?"

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent has filed a civil suit for possession of agricultural land. The. plaintiff claimed that he is the Bhumiswami of the land bearing survey No. 101 area 0. 240 hectare, situated in village Bamuliya, Tehsil Sironj, District vidisha. This land is 'kheda'. A public road in on the western side of the land. The house of the defendant is towards southern side of the suit land and remaining lands of the defendant are extended on other two sides of the plaintiff's land. Plaintiff's land is surrounded by defendant's property from three sides except the western side. The plaintiff has applied for demarcation of his land on 25-1-1984 before the Tehsildar. In the demarcation, it was found that the defendant had made some encroachment over the suit land.

( 3 ) THE claim was denied by the defendant. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding therein that the suit as filed is not complying with the provisions of Order 7, Rule 3, code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, referred to as 'code'), and in the absence of plea of possession of specific land, no decree could be passed. The first Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the suit.

( 4 ) THE first question of law involved in this appeal is whether in the absence of specific pleadings as provided under Order 7, Rule 3 of the Code and particular identity of the suit land, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) IN the case of Laxmichand Shitabrai and Another v. Nemichand Hukumchand, it was held that where the subject-matter of a dispute is altogether unascertainable the suit cannot be entertained at all. It is quite easy for a person to imagine that the neighbour is committing the outrage of encroachment on his land to the width of an inch or two, but he cannot pursue that matter in a Court of law unless he is in a position to get it demarcated fairly and with some degree of accuracy. This order was passed while considering the scope of Order 6. Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. Order 7, Rule 3 of the Code is reproduced below :-"where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. "

( 6 ) RULE 3 of Order 7 of the Code provides that where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of property sufficient to identify it, and in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. Counsel for the respondent submitted that from the bare pleadings in the plaint and in the absence of any map of alleged encroachment, the suit of the plaintiff should be dismissed. He also submitted that the Allahabad high Court in the case of Ganesh v. Shri Ram lalji Maharaj Birajman Mandir and Others, held that when the other description of the property is sufficient to identity it and at no stage of the suit had the parties raised any dispute as to the identity of the suit property, the court in exercise of its powers under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code can correct any error or mis-description in the decree pertaining to the