( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 328 of 2016 1. Ram Naresh Dubey Son of Late Chandrika Dubey (dead and substituted vide order dated 10.09.2024) 1 (a) Manmati Devi w/o Late Ram Naresh Dubey 1 (b) Pradeep Kumar Dubey S/o Late Ram Naresh Dubey, both R/o village Dalko, P.O.-Harigawan, P.S. Manjhiaon, District- Garhwa 1. (c) Manju Devi w/o Ravindra Pandey R/o village & P.O. Basna, P.S. Nawa Bazar, District-Palamau 1 (d) Binda Devi w/o Late Suraj Kumar Pandey, R/o village- Salhana, P.O.- Kutmu, P.S. -Pandu, District- Palamau. 1. (e) Punam Devi w/o Dilip Dubey R/o village- Karihar, P.O.- Sirma, P.S. Patan, District- Palamau. 2. Bigan Dubey Son of Late Rajkeshwar Dubey, both resident of village- Gangtiria, P.O. Bardiha, P.S.- Manjhion, District- Garhwa (Jharkhand) (Deleted and died substituted vide order dated 18.11.2019) Hon’ble High Court Order. 2. (a) Jitendra Dubey aged about 45 years 2. (b) Satendra Dubey aged about 42 years 2. (c) Ravindra Dubey aged about 38 years 2. (d) Lal Bahadur Dubey aged about 35 years All sons of Late Bigan Dubey, and all residents of village- Dalko, P.O.- Harigawan, P.S.-Manjhion, District- Garhwa. 2. (e) Sarita Devi aged about 49 years, D/o Late Bigan Dubey w/o Bidya Bhushan Tiwari R/o- village- Merauni, P.O..- Merauni, P.S.-Bhavnathpur (Hariharpur O.P.), District- Garhwa. 2. (f) Anita Devi aged about 42 years D/o, Bigan Dubey w/o Shashi Bhushan Shukla, R/o village-Hariharpur, P.O.- Hariharpur, P.S.- Bhavnathpur (Hariharpur O.P.), District- Garhwa. … …. Plaintiffs 1 Set/ Appellants 1 Set/Appellants 1 Set 3. Suresh Rajwar Son of Late Ghura Rajwar resident of village- Gangtiria, P.O.-Bardiha, P.S.-Manjhion, District- Garhwa., Jharkhand … Plaintiff II Set/ Appellant II Set /Appellant II Set Versus 1. Ram Das Rajwar 2. Vijay Rajwar 3. Nandu Rajwar 4. Sri Ram Rajwar 5. Nagendra Rajwar, All Sons of Late Mangru Rajwar, resident of village-Gangtiria, P.O.-Bardiha, P.S.- Manjhion, District- Garhwa (Jharkhand) … Defendants /Respondents/Principal Respondents 6. Jagan Rajwar 7. Narayan Rajwar, Serial No. 6&7 sons of Late Ghura Rajwar ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 2 8. Sudarshan Rajwar Son of Late Naresh Rajwar, Serial No. 6 to 8, All resident of village- Gangtiria P.O.-Bardiha, P.S.- Manjhion, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand 9. Sahodari Devi W/o Lagan Rajwar 10. Chandrawati Devi W/o Bigu Rajwar, serial No. 9&10 resident of village-Sukhnadi, P.O.-Aadar, P.S.-Manjhion, District- Garhwa. … … Plaintiffs II Set/ Appellants II Set 11. Jhagru Rajwar 12. Raj Kumar Rajwar 13. Rama Rajwar 14. Murari Rajwar, Serial No. 11 to 14 Sons of Late Harihar Rajwar and resident of village- Gawarwa, P.O.-Kurai, P.S.- Manjhion, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand Serial No. 11 to 14 L, Rs. of the Plaintiff No. (3rd) – Appellant No. 7 Chandramania Devi. 15. Binod Rajwar S/o Late Kapil Deo Rajwar, resident of village- Sukhnadi, P.O.-Adar,P.S.- Manjhion, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand 16. Jitani Devi W/o Sanjay Rajwar R/o village- Rahanbigha, P.O. &P.S-Untari Road District- Palamau, Jharkhand 17. Basanti Devi W/o Surajdeo Rajwar, resident of village- Raksahi, P.O.-Lamari, P.S.-Kandi, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand 18. Poonam Devi W/o Bilu Rajwar, R/o village-Kauakhoh, P.O.- Bardiha, P.S.-Manjhion, District-Garhwa. 19. Sona Devi W/o Mukesh Rajwar R/o village- Darjiya, P.O.& P.S.- Nagar Untari, District- Garhwa 20. Kavita Kumari D/o Late Kapil Deo Rajwar, resident of village- Sukhnadi, P.O.-Aadar, P.S.- Manjhion, District- Garhwa. (Serial No. 15 to 20 L. Rs. of Plaintiff No. 3 (F)-Appellant No. 9 Girja Devi) … … Performa Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate : Mr. S.T. Sajid, Advocate : Mr.Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate --- 41/13.02.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 30.03.2016 (decree signed on 18.04.2016) passed by the District Judge II, Garhwa in Title Appeal No. 05 of 2011 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011 (decree signed on 21.02.2011) passed by the learned Munsif Garhwa in Title Suit No. 04 of 1991. 3. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit and the learned 1st appellate court has affirmed the judgement of the learned trial court. ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 3 This appeal has been admitted for final hearing vide order dated 27.09.2023 on the following substantial question of law:- “ (i) whether the concurrent findings of both courts below suffer from perversity due to non- consideration of issues involved in this case on the basis of evidence oral and documentary adduced by the parties? (ii) Whether the courts below have recorded findings beyond the pleadings and evidence of the parties about identity of the suit property? (iii) Whether the appellate court below has recorded illegally/wrong findings at the instance of Misc. Case No.105/08.02.1965 against the plaintiff set No.2 and held all plaintiffs as non-suited? (iv) and the parties are at liberty to raise other and further substantial question(s) of law at the time of hearing, if warranted in this case.” Submission on behalf of the appellants 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this appeal has been filed seeking declaration of right, title and possession with respect to the suit property and also for recovery of possession, if found dispossessed from the property. He submits that there are two sets of plaintiffs which is as follows: - Plaintiff 1st Set: Ram Naresh Dubey, S/o: Late Chandrika Dubey Bigan Dubey, S/o: Late Rajkeshwar Dubey Plaintiff 2nd Set: Ghura Rajwar, S/o Late Godha Rajwar (Substituted vide trial court’s order dated 04.12.2009) 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the property involved in this case is Khata No. 25 plot No. 96 area 0.38 acres; Khata No. 3 plot No. 97 area 0.59 acres; Khata No.1 plot No. 78 area 1.53 acres and khata No. 1, plot No. 78 area 1 acre, total 3.50 acres and the details and boundary of the property has given in schedule A. ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 4 He submits that schedule B and schedule C are part of schedule A property. 6. Schedule B property was owned and possessed by plaintiff 2nd set and Schedule C property was owned and possessed by plaintiff 1st set. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the plaint which is as under:- “1. That Chandrika Dubey and Raj Kishore Dubey, S/o late Deodhari Dubey reclaimed about 10 acres of land in plot No. 78, more than 3 acres of land in plot No. 73 and about 1 acre of land in plot No. 96 of village Gangtiria. The rent for the above land was assessed and correction slip was issued on 8.2.65 in Case No. 105 and accordingly rent from the date of vesting is being realized. 2. That in the name of Chandrika Dubey and Rajkishore Dubey rent of other ‘Bakast’ land including 2.00 acre of plot No. 97 was assessed and the rent has since been realized from the date of vesting. 3. That thus Chandrika Dubey and Raj Kishore Dubey were recognized as occupancy raiyats with several acres of land covered by last Cadastral Survey plot No. 96, 97, 73, 78 and others, by the State of Bihar and after their death the plaintiffs 1st set being their exclusive heirs inherited the same and are in cultivating possession of all such lands. 4. That similarly plaintiff 2nd set reclaimed one acre of land in plot No. 78 for which rent was assessed in his name and demand has been opened by the State of Bihar in his name and the raiyati rent is being realized from him from the date of vesting. 5. That the defendant got a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C initiated before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa against the plaintiff Ram Naresh Dubey which was registered as Misc. Case No. 290 of 1986. In that proceeding the defendant claimed the land described in schedule A below here-in-after called the suit-land as her raiyati land and wrongly alleged that the suit-land appertain to Cadestral Survey plot No. 78 only. In that proceeding she alleged to have acquired the suit-land from the ex-landlord in the year 1948 by ‘Sada Bandobasti’ deed. She also alleged that one correction slip in Case No. 7/82-83 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Garhwa was issued but the learned Sub-Divisional Officer Considering the entire documents of the plaintiffs and the defendant made the rule absolute against the defendant and vacated the same against the plaintiff No.1.” ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 5 8. It was never the case of the plaintiff 1st set that plot No. 97 was included in case no. 105 and it was never the case of plaintiff 2nd set that plot No. 78 was included in case No.105. However, the learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the substantial question of law has submitted that the plaint and the written statement is required to be seen as to what were the issues for consideration before the court? The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the boundary of the property involved in this case was duly identified and no such objection with respect to the boundary was ever raised in the written statement and therefore the learned courts were not justified in holding that the property itself was not identifiable and they were not justified in dismissing the suit on that count. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 13 SCC 673 [Zarif Ahmad (dead) through legal Representatives and another] paragraph 10 and 11 which are quoted as under: - “10. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the defendants but we are unable to agree with it for the reason that had it been a case of mandatory injunction requiring restoration of possession of land to the plaintiff or demolition of the construction raised by the defendants, what the defendants have pleaded before us, could have been accepted but the present suit is for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the land which is described with boundaries and its municipal number. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decree passed by the trial court is unexecutable. 11. Order 7 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), which pertains to the requirement of description of immovable property, reads as under: “3. Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property.—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.” The object of the above provision is that the description of the property must be sufficient to identify it. The property can be identifiable by boundaries, or by number in a public record of ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 6 settlement or survey. Even by plaint map showing the location of the disputed immovable property, it can be described. Since in the present case, the suit property has been described by the plaintiff in the plaint not only by the boundaries but also by the municipal number, and by giving its description in the plaint map, by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the suit property was not identifiable in the present case. 9. While referring to the plaint, the learned counsel has referred to paragraph 1 and 4 and has submitted that there were two sets of plaintiffs. So far as the plaintiff 1st set is concerned, they were claiming that they had properties about 10 acres in plot no. 78, more than 3 acres in plot no. 73 and about 1 acre in plot no. 96 and rent was assessed which was included in Case No. 105 in which correction slip was issued on 08.02.1965. The learned counsel further submits that plot no. 97, was the Bakast land and the plaintiff 1st set had 2 acres of land and the rent was assessed in their name. The further case of the plaintiff 1st set was they were recognized as of occupancy raiyats in cadastral survey bearing plot no. 96,97,73 and 78 by the State of Bihar and they were in exclusive possession of the property. 10. So far as plaintiff 2nd set is concerned, the case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff’s 2nd set had reclaimed 1 acre of land in plot no. 78 for which rent was assessed in his name and demand was opened by the State of Bihar and was being realized right from the date of vesting. The learned counsel submits that there were numerous proceedings which included proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C. and 145 Cr. P.C. between the parties and ultimately the suit was filed. He has further submitted that in the plaint itself it was mentioned that the plot no. 78 had total area of 27.25 acres and no portion of plot no. 78 was in possession of the defendants. The schedule of the properties is as under:- Schedule-A Giving the description of the suit-lands Khata No. Plot No. Area Boundary 25 96 0.38 N: Jhagauri Rajwar ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 7 3 97 0.59 S: Meghan Rajwar and others 1 78 1.53 E: Makhru Ahir and Anwara Devi 1 78 1.00 W: Jagdish Mahto and Suresh Kothri Total 3.50 acres Appertaining the village Gangtiria, Thana No. 199 Schedule-B Lands of Ghura Rajwar plaintiff 2nd set included in the suit land Plot No. 78, Area:- 1.00 appertaining to village Gangtiria, Thana No. 199 Bounded as follows:- N- Ram Naresh Dubey (plaintiff 1st set) S- Meghan Rajwar E:- Meghan Rajwar W:-Plaintiffs 1st set (Ram Naresh Dubey) Schedule-C Giving the details of lands of plaintiff 1st set Khata No. Plot No. Area 25 96 0.38 3 97 0.59 1 78 1.53 Of village Gangtiria, Thana No. 199 bounded as follows:- N:- Jhagauri Rajwar S:- Plaintiffs 2nd set and Meghana Rajwar E:- Makhru Ahir and Anwara Devi W:- Jagdish Mahto and Suresh Koiri and plaintiffs 2nd set 11. The learned counsel submits that a written statement was filed by the sole defendant who stated that the statements made in paragraph 1 to 4 of the plaint was neither admitted nor denied and the plaintiffs be put to strict proof of the same. It was not disputed that there was inter se proceedings under section 144 and 145 of Cr. P.C. The defendants claimed that the property was settled in the year 1948 in her name and the property was taken by her father while she was a minor. It was also stated that no part of plot no. 96 or plot no. 97 was included in 3.50 acres which was settled in favour of the defendant. ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 8 12. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the written statement, the facts with respect to the properties has been mentioned in paragraph 15 and the defendant claimed that they were also having rent receipt with respect to the property claimed by them. The learned counsel has drawn the specific attention of this court to paragraph no. 15(f) and has submitted that the defendant claimed that they were in possession of the property settled with her in plot no. 78 and also claimed adverse possession. The learned counsel has also referred to paragraph no. 16 to say that the specific case of the defendants was that the plaintiffs have no land within the boundary of the defendant. Paragraph 15(f) and paragraph 16 of the written statement of the defendant are quoted as under:- 15(f) Thus the defendant is in possession of the land settled with her i.e. 3.50 acres in plot no. 78 since the time of her settlement on 17.09.48 openly. Uninterruptedly, continuously and adversely. Hence she has perfected her title by adverse possession also. 16. That the land of the defendant measuring 3.50 acres is situated on the south-north of plot no. 85 of Mandip Sao and east of plot no. 97 of Jagdish Koeri. On the north and the east are the lands of Jhagru Rajwar and Makharu Ahir respectively in plot no. 78. The plaintiffs have no land within the boundaries of the land of the defendant. Their claim of ownership and possession of any land within this boundary is mischievously false and dishonest.” 13. The learned counsel submits that it was the specific case of the defendants that there is no overlap between the claim of the plaintiffs and claim of the defendants as per the pleadings of the defendants. He submits that under such circumstances, there was no impediment on the part of the court to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. 14. The learned counsel submits that although the boundary of the suit property was not specified by details of plot number etc. and no map was attached with the plaint but the boundary mentioned was sufficient for the court as no dispute with regard to identity of the ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 9 property was raised by the defendant in the written statement. The learned counsel submits that under such circumstances, the learned trial court as well as the learned 1st appellate court have decided the case on the issue which was not involved with regard to identity of the property and therefore it suffers from perversity. He submits that the substantial question of law no. 1 and 2 be answered in favour of the appellants. 15. With respect to the substantial question of law no. 3, the learned counsel has referred to the additional evidence. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that so far as plaintiffs second set is concerned, it was never their case that their property claimed by them was involved in Misc. Case No. 105 dated 8.02.1965 but in spite of that the learned 1st appellate court has refused to grant any relief to the plaintiffs 2nd set inter alia by holding that proceeding in connection with Misc. Case No. 105/08.02.1965 was not available on record. The learned counsel submits that the plaintiffs 2nd set were claiming property only in plot no. 78 area 01 acre, but the same had no relation with the aforesaid case of 1965 as per the plaint. The learned counsel also submits that so far as the plaintiff 1st set is concerned, plot no. 97 also had no nexus with the Miscellaneous case of 1965 in spite of that the suit in its entirety has been dismissed. Submission on behalf of the respondents:- 16. The learned counsel for the respondents at the threshold has submitted that none of the substantial question of law arise for consideration in the present case as they do not constitute substantial question of law at all. He has also submitted that so far as the additional evidence sought to be adduced through the interlocutory application is concerned, the same also does not help the appellants in any manner as the same is of no use identifying the property involved in the present case and both the courts have passed judgments by holding that the plaintiffs have not given proper boundary and identity of the plot and the identity and description of the property is vague. He has referred to Order 7 Rule 3 of the CPC. ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 10 17. The learned counsel opposing the prayer has also submitted that apart from the aforesaid objection with regard to substantial question of law has submitted that if the description of the property is not proper in terms of Order 7 Rule 3, then the suit cannot be decreed. The learned counsel also submits that although in the plaint, there are numerous plots, but so far as the defendants are concerned, they were fully concern with portion of plot no. 78 and they had stated that the portion of plot no. 78 being possessed by the defendants was different from the claims made by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel has also submitted that it is for the plaintiffs to get the property identified and in absence of proper identity of property, the right, title and interest cannot be declared and has again referred to Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC. 18. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the documents which is sought to be adduced as additional evidence at the 2nd appellate stage cannot be accepted as there is no cogent explanation for not producing the said document at appropriate stage. It was neither produced at the stage of trial nor produced at 1st appellate stage. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 and has submitted that additional evidence cannot be permitted to be filed only to fill up a lacuna. He has also submitted that otherwise also the additional evidence is of no consequence as the same does not clear the boundary of the property claimed by the plaintiff which is the reason for dismissal of the suit. He has also submitted that the learned courts have neither decided the suit in favour of the plaintiffs nor the same has been decided in favour of the defendants and there was no occasion to decide the suit in favour of the defendants and the other observations has no relevance. He submits that the defendants specifically claimed that the property of the defendant is different from that of the plaintiffs. He has also submitted that the law is well settled that the plaintiffs have to stand on his own legs. Rejoinder argument of the appellants 19. To this, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has made an observation that the ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 11 plaintiffs have failed to prove their right, title over the suit land rather, it is the defendant in whose favour it leans. The learned counsel submits that where the defendants were claiming that they had completely distinct property, there was no occasion for the learned 1st appellate court even to make an observation to that effect. Had the learned 1st appellate court taken care of the pleadings of the parties, there was no such occasion. The learned counsel submits that the learned 1st appellate court has given conflicting finding. On the one hand, the court has observed that the boundary of schedule-A is specified but the boundary of Schedule-B and Schedule-C is not specified and ultimately dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC by holding that the boundaries are vague and do not satisfy the requirement of Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC and the pleadings of the plaintiffs is defective and on the other hand held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their right, title over the suit land. 20. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the plaint and written statement, this court finds that the though the plaintiffs claim certain property in plot nos. 78,73 and 96 which was subject matter in case number 105 of the year 1965 but with respect to plot no. 97, no such relation was there with the said case. So far as the plaintiff 2nd set is concerned, they claimed only 01 acre in plot no. 78 which did not have any connection with case number 105 of 1965. 21. So far as the description of property involved in the present case is concerned, admittedly the plaintiffs were claiming portions of property. It is not in dispute that so far as plot no. 78 is concerned, the plaintiffs were claiming portion of the property and so far as plot no. 96 and 97 are concerned, it is not clear as the same were part of the property (entire plot) or the same was entire property (entire plot). It has not been mentioned in the plaint as to what was the total area of plot no. 96 and plot no. 97, although the total area of plot no. 78 has been mentioned. The boundary which has been given in Schedule-A does not give any description of the property. The plaint also reveals ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 12 that with respect to plot no. 97, area of 2 acres has been mentioned but the claim is only 0.59 acres. 22. This court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2015) 13 SCC 673 (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, it has been held while considering Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC has observed that the property can be identified by boundaries or by number in public record of survey settlement, even by plaint map showing the location of the dispute involved in the property. 23. This court finds from the description of the property as quoted above , the boundary of Schedule-A,B and C property does not refer to any plot number/khata number or part of plot number/khata number, rather it only mentions the name of the persons. It is not clear as to whether these properties are contiguous to each other or not. The Khata numbers are also different; with respect to plot no. 96, the khata number is 25; with respect to plot no. 97 the khata no. is 3; and with respect to plot no. 78, the khata no. is 1. Although the thana number for all the properties in the schedule is 199. 24. This court finds that the learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings had framed the following issues for consideration which are as under: - 1. Is the suit as framed maintainable. 2. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action for the suit. 3. Is the suit barred by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. 4. Is the suit barred by law of limitation as well as adverse possession. 5. Is the suit bad for multifariousness of cause of action. 6. Is suit further bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 7. Has the suit been undervalued to evade proper court fee. 8. Are the plaintiffs occupancy raiyat in respect of suit land OR the defendant is raiyat by virtue of alleged settlement in her favour by the then landlord. 9. Whether any part of plot No. 96 and 97 amalgamated with the 3.50 acres of the defendant in plot No. 78. 10. Have plaintiff entitled to any relief as claimed or any other relief or reliefs. 11. Whether defendant has valid right, title and interest over the suit land. ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 13 12. Whether plaintiffs have valid and absolute right, title and interest over the suit land. 13. Whether defendant has acquired raiyati right, title and interest through settlement in the year 1948 over 3.50 acres land of suit plot No 78, which is suit land.” 25. The aforesaid issues included as to whether the part of the plot nos. 96 and 97 amalgamate with 3.50 acres of defendant of plot no. 78 and also whether the defendant has acquired raiyati right, title and interest through the settlement in the year 1948 over 3.50 acres of land of suit plot no. 78. 26. The learned trial court has considered the issue nos. 8,9,11,12 and 13 together and has recorded that plot no. 78 is a very big plot and has also recorded that the documents of the plaintiffs in connection with Khata No. 25 and Khata No. 1 were also in parts and consisting of several plots. The court also recorded that the defendant had also produced documents with respect to the demand in plot no. 78 Khata No. 1 area 3.50 acres. The court ultimately recorded that there was no exact physical possession of the land in question in favour of the plaintiffs, rather the area and boundary as submitted by the plaintiffs itself appears to be very much confusing and doubtful and also observed that it could not be said that without measurement of the physical position to locate the specific boundary of the land, it would go in favour of the defendant and though it could not be denied that the land of the plaintiffs and defendants appear as per the evidence within plot no. 78. The court also held that there was no specific demarcation with plot no. 78 and it is not possible to ascertain the exact portion of big plot no. 78 as to without clear demarcation neither of the parties could claim suit property for them. Primarily the learned trial court considered the fact that the defendant was claiming the property only in plot no. 78 and no other plot and recorded that in absence of proper demarcation and boundary it was not possible to decree the suit. This court finds that the learned trial court had taken into consideration the fact that the defendant was claiming property only in portion of plot no. 78 and the boundaries etc. could not be ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 14 ascertained on the basis of the description given in the plaint and also on the basis of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties. The trial court neither decided the right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiffs nor decided the same in favour of the defendant, though the suit was dismissed. 27. So far as the learned 1st appellate court is concerned, the following two issues were framed for consideration: - “a. Whether the suit lands are specified in the plaint and the evidence of the plaintiffs/appellants. b. Whether the plaintiffs/ appellants have got right and tide over the suit land.” 28. The learned 1st appellate court considered the oral and documentary evidences including the evidence of the plaintiff themselves who had not been able to give the exact boundary and location of the property even in their oral evidences. The learned court recorded that three Schedule of the land in the plaint namely A,B,C of Schedule A is the suit land which includes B and C. The court also recorded that the suit land under schedule-A which were specified with specific boundary but Schedule B and C which were included under Schedule A have their different boundary, meaning thereby that the court was of the view that the boundaries though the schedule-A and Schedule-B property constituted the entire schedule-A property, but the boundaries did not match to ascertain the property. Ultimately, the court came to the conclusion that the suit lands were vague as not specified in boundary and area as required under the mandatory provision of order 7 Rule 3 of the CPC and the pleadings of the plaintiffs/appellants was defective one. The finding is in paragraph 7 (a) which is quoted as under:- 7(a). In order to come to the conclusion as the suit lands are specified in the plaint and evidence of the plaintiffs/appellants, this court would like to observe here that in a case of civil nature documentary evidence are of prime concern if available in comparison with the oral evidence. It is also settled principle of law that the party who has come with a case has to prove the same and it cannot take benefit of lapses on the part of the opposite party in case of a dispute in civil nature. The pleading of ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 15 the plaintiffs/appellants goes to show in para 1 that the plaintiffs/ appellants have reclaimed lands about more than three acres in plot NO. 78 and more than three acres in plot No. 73 as well as a bout one acre in plot No. 96 and therefore, exact area of the said lands have not been incorporated, P.W.-4 Suresh Rajwar plaintiff/appellants NO. 3 in para 8 of his cross-examination has stated that he could not say how much lands they have in respective khata in dispute, P.W.- 10 Ram Naresh Dubey plaintiff/appellant No.1 have stated in his examination in chief that about 15-16 acres land in different khatas as above they have acquired and thus he has also not said about the exact area of the disputed land. Apart from this there are three schedules of land in the plaint namely A, B and C out of that schedule A is the suit lands which includes schedule B and Schedule C. The suit lands under schedule A which are specified with specific boundary but schedule B and schedule C lands which are included under schedule A have their different boundaries. Therefore, this court comes to the conclusion that the suit lands are vague is not specified in boundary and area as required under the mandatory provision of the C.P.C. under Order 7 Rule 3 and thus the pleading of the plaintiffs/appellant is defective one Accordingly it is answered.” 29. So far as finding with regard to point no. (b) is concerned, the same has been decided vide paragraph 7 (b) and the learned court recorded that although specific reference was made in the plaint the court has taken adverse inference on account of non-production of the records relating to case no. 105 dated 08.02.1965 which was said to be the basis of the claim of the plaintiffs. 30. However, this court finds that the claim was not entirely based on the said documents of the plaintiffs as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 31. However, the same does not have much bearing in this case. This court finds that the defendant claimed 3.50 acres of land of plot no. 78 and asserted that no part of plot no. 96 or 97 was included in 3.50 acres which was settled with the defendant. Thus, the bone of contention was plot no. 78 and therefore the court was under an ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 16 obligation to decide the dispute only in connection with plot no. 78 as the defendant did not raise any dispute with respect to other plots. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their right, title over the suit land and also observed that it was the defendant in whose favour it leans. However, no clear finding has been recorded in favour of the defendant as well and there was no occasion to decide the right, title and interest of the defendant with respect to the property which the defendant never claimed and further the defendant claimed that plot no. 78 , 3.50 acres was totally distinct from that of the claim of the plaintiffs. 32. So far as interlocutory application is concerned, this court finds that the appellants have not given any suitable explanation for not producing the said document at the appropriate stage and further considering the plaint and the findings recorded by the courts that the description of the property is not in accordance with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC. The said document is not required by the court to answer the substantial question of law involved in this case. 33. I.A. No. 7619 of 2023 stands dismissed. 34. Considering the substantial question of law involved in this case, this court finds that the learned courts have not committed any perversity and have rightly focused on the plot no. 78 which was the real bone of contention between the parties and have rightly not returned any finding in favour of either party because of vague description of the property in the plaint. The findings are not beyond the pleadings of the parties. It is sufficient to observe that if there is any observation in connection with considering the Misc. Case No. 105 dated 08.02.1965, then the same has no bearing in the matter. However, it is sufficient to observe that the Misc. Case No. 105 dated 08.02.1965, was not relatable to the entire suit property and the property of the plaintiffs 2nd set and portion of the property of plaintiffs 1st set had no relation with the aforesaid proceedings as is apparent from the plaint itself. Consequently, even though the learned courts have given incorrect finding on the aforesaid aspect while considering the Misc. Case No. 105 dated 08.02.1965, still the same ( 2026:JHHC:4143 ) 17 has no bearing in the matter as the description of the suit property was vague and the suit itself was hit by Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC. 35. In view of the aforesaid findings, the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants (plaintiffs) and in favour of the contesting respondents(defendants). 36. This court finds no reason to interfere with the 1st appellate court’s judgement refusing to interfere with the judgement of the learned trial court. This 2nd appeal is accordingly dismissed with aforesaid observation. 37. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 13.02.2026 Uploaded on: 26.05.2026. Binit