Property identification by boundaries and map reference satisfies Order VII Rule 3, and remand is unnecessary when the record is sufficient.

An immovable property is sufficiently identifiable under Order VII Rule 3 CPC when the plaint describes it by boundaries, municipal number and map reference, because identification may rest on public-record numbers, boundaries or a plaint map. The objection that the suit property was not properly described therefore failed. On the appellate stage, Section 107 CPC and Order XLI Rule 24 CPC permit final disposal on the existing record where the evidence is sufficient, so remand was unnecessary. The appellate court was justified in deciding the matter finally and restoring the trial court decree.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit property was sufficiently described and identifiable under Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the first appellate court ought to have remanded the matter or could have decided it finally on the existing record.

Issue (i): Whether the suit property was sufficiently described and identifiable under Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The plaint described the immovable property by boundaries, municipal number and map reference. Order VII Rule 3 requires a description sufficient to identify the property, and identification may be made by boundaries, numbers in public records, or a plaint map. On the material on record, the property was capable of clear identification and the objection that it was not identifiable had no merit.

Conclusion: The suit property was sufficiently identifiable, and the objection against maintainability on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the first appellate court ought to have remanded the matter or could have decided it finally on the existing record.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers the appellate court to take additional evidence or to decide the case finally, and Order XLI Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits final disposal where the evidence on record is sufficient. Since the issue of identifiability did not arise from the pleadings and the record was adequate, remand was unnecessary. The concurrent evidence also supported the plaintiff's possession, and the commissioner's report did not outweigh the documentary and oral evidence accepted by the trial court.

Conclusion: The appellate court was not bound to remand the matter and was justified in restoring the trial court decree.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the respondent was upheld, and the challenge to the High Court's restoration of the trial court's decree failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an immovable property is described by boundaries, municipal number and map reference, it is sufficiently identifiable under Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and an appellate court should not remand the matter when the record is sufficient for final decision under Section 107 and Order XLI Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---