ARUMUGHAN Vs. SREEDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 4 and 5 came up with this appeal aggrieved by the concurrent decree and judgment of both the Courts below, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The suit is one for mandatory injunction and consequential prohibitory injunction. There is only one schedule to the plaint, over which the plaintiff claims a decree of mandatory injunction and a consequential prohibitory injunction. But it was not made a mention anywhere in the plaint schedule what is the exact extent of the property scheduled in the plaint. Instead what is stated is "various schedules as per two documents of the year 1969 and 1982 ". It is true that these two documents were produced along with the plaint and it will form part of the pleading. But the mandate under order 7 Rule 3 of CPC has to be complied with while maintaining a suit on immovable properties. It is also not proper to annex these two documents as part of the decree so as to identify the property. The instant schedule that is attached to the plaint is incomplete and not capable of identification. A decree can be granted only with respect to a property which is capable of identification. The mandate under Order 7 Rule 3 CPC is not complied with while incorporating the plaint schedule in the plaint and as such no effective decree can be granted. The same would operate as a substantial question of law for the purpose of this appeal. Hence the appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment of both the courts below are set aside and the suit is dismissed on that defect.

(2.) This appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment of both the courts below are set aside and the suit is dismissed.