1994 Supreme(MP) 812

Tej Shankar, J.
Raja Bai (Mahila) v. Dropadi Bai
SA. No. 229 of 1986 (G); Decided on 28.9.1994.

Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 100 -- second appeal-- interference can only be made if there is misd`reading of evidence or some material evidence has been ignored or approach is absolutely incorrect.

        (2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.7 R. 3 -- boundaries and house number specifically pleaded -- map need not be annexed with the plaint.

        ¼1½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 100 & f}rh; vihy & gLr{ksi dsoy rc gh fd;k tk ldrk gS tc lk{; dk xyr vFkZ yxk;k x;k gks vFkok fdlh rkfRod lk{; dh mis{kk dh xbZ gks ;k vfHkxe vR;ar xyr gksA

        The learned counsel drew my attention to the provisions of order 7 Rule 3C.P.C. and contended that that it was the duty of the plaintiff to have mentioned in the plaint description of the property sufficient to identify it and in this paragraph she ought to have filed a map defining the property.

        Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the property in dispute was properly described in the plaint with reference to boundaries as well as numbers as required under Order 7 Rule 3 CPC. It is wholly incorrect to contend that the description of the property was not proper and according to law.

        Held: There cannot be any denial of the principal of law that findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below cannot be re-opened by this Court, unless it is shown that it was based upon misreading of evidence or by ignoring some material evidence or the approach of the Court below was absolutely incorrect which no reasonable person would do. I may mention in the very beginning that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 3 C.P.C. provided, certain requirements to be fulfilled where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property. In this provision, it has been specifically mentioned that where the Subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall cont.1in a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and in case such property can be identified by boundaries of numbers in the record of settlement or survey, the plaintiff must specify such boundaries or numbers. There is no mention in this provision of providing any map. It simply requires that there must be sufficient description to identify the property in dispute. The mode has also been mentioned in it i.e. the immovable properly can be described, if it could be identified by boundaries or numbers of settlement of survey. In the present case, a perusal of the plaint, it has specifically mentioned that Raghunath Singh, her father-in-law had left a house Municipal No. 15/219 and its previous number was 14/530, situate at Lakkad Khana, L1shkar. Not only this, she has also mentioned the boundaries. Appeal dismissed.