The defendants came up against the concurrent

finding rendered by both the Trial Court (Munsiff

Court, Nedumangad) in O.S.No.263/1978 and the First

Appellate Court (Sub Court, Nedumangad) in

A.S.No.66/1996, by granting a decree of recovery of

possession and fixation of boundary in favour of

the plaintiffs.

2. The litigation was started in the year

1978. Forty one years already elapsed after the

institution of the suit. It is a suit for

declaration of title, recovery of possession and

fixation of boundary. It is the 3^rd round of

litigation in the same proceedings as the party had

suffered two remand on earlier two occasions. Three

Commissions were respectively let out. It was

accepted one after another by the Trial Court, but

the First Appellate Court reversed the same and

remanded the matter to the Trial Court. It has

resulted in the issuance of 3^rd survey Commission,

who in turn prepared survey sketch, report and

SA.No.934 of 2000 5

mahazer. It was accepted by the Trial Court and

the First Appellate Court and decreed the suit,

against which the defendants came up with this

appeal.

3.

The following questions came up for

consideration apart from the questions framed at

the time of admission :

Whether C schedule description is

identifiable ? Can the court grant a

decree with respect to an unidentifiable

property ? What would be legal effect when

the plaint schedule description is not

complete and not capable of identification

and whether the trial court and the first

appellate court justified in decreeing the

suit in respect of C schedule property ?

4. It is so unfortunate that the plaint 'C'

schedule description is not capable of

identification of any property, which is extracted

below for reference:

“ùàØVçÕ 71/1/3_W 2 ¯AV 92 æØaßW ©ZæMG

²çøAV ÉáøÏß¿JßW ÎicÍÞ·¢ 65¹/2 æØaí ÕØñá ÎàøÞXÉßU

¥ÙNÆí ÉßUÏíAí ÕßÜ æµÞ¿áJÄí µÝߺîá æÄAᢠտAá¢

ÕÖB{ßÜÞÏß µß¿MáU 34 ¹/2 æØaßW 8¹/2 æØaßW 3 ¯V 40

SA.No.934 of 2000 6

º:ÎàxV ÉáøÏß¿ÕᢠÕcfB{á¢.”“

“All that property and the trees in 3

Are 40 sq.mtr. equivalent to 8¹/2 cents

out of 34¹/2 cents lying as part on north

and south excluding 65¹/2 cents sold to

Meeran Pillai Ahmed Pillai being the

middle portion of 1 acre out of 2 acre

92 cents in Re.Sy.No.71/1/3.”

5. The description itself found to be so

mischievous not capable of identifying the property

in question. The plaint C schedule property is

having an extent of 8¹/2 cents out of large extent

of 34¹/2 cents. But, it is not stated whether it

will form part of eastern portion, northern

portion, southern or western portion or it would

take middle portion of the said 34¹/2

^cents

property. Its location is not made mentioned in

the plaint schedule. The document of title claimed

by the plaintiff, Ext.A2 partition deed also

suffers the very same defect.

It is not

discernible from the document whether the property

allotted to the plaintiff would form a definite

part of the large extent of 34¹/2cents, left out

after the sale of 65¹/2 cents of property to Meeran

Pillai Ahammed Pillai. Their parental document

SA.No.934 of 2000 7

Ext.A1 would show that an extent of 98.325 cents

was allotted to the share of Narayana Pillai. This

property was subjected to a partition after a sale

in favour of Meeran Pillai Ahammed Pillai under

Ext.B15. Going by Ext.B15, it is clear that what

is sold to Meeran Pillai Ahammed Pillai is the

southern part of large extent of 98.325 cents, but

what is partitioned in Ext.A2 by the legal heirs of

Narayana Pillai, is the balance extent of property

having an extent of 34¹/2 cents. But in the document

its description is shown as portions of properties

lying on north and south of 65¹/2 cents property

sold to Meeran Pillai Ahammed Pillai. It is quite

against the property description in Ext.B15 sale

deed. What is sold to Meeran Pillai Ahammed Pillai

is the s