Precise identification of disputed immovable property is essential; unproved encroachment and vague pleadings cannot sustain relief.

A suit for encroachment over immovable property must describe the disputed land with sufficient precision under Order VII Rule 3 CPC, so the property can be identified by boundaries, survey numbers or other clear particulars; where the encroached portion is not specifically pleaded and no map is filed, the plaint is liable to rejection and any decree becomes unworkable. The document also notes that, without properly proved demarcation and supporting evidence, reliance on a panchanama cannot sustain a finding of encroachment. Non-impleadment of the State under Order I Rule 3-B CPC was treated as a curable irregularity and not, by itself, fatal to maintainability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a suit for encroachment over immovable property was maintainable when the plaint did not contain a sufficient description or exact identification of the disputed portion as required by Order VII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether, in the absence of proof of demarcation, the appellate court could rely on the panchanama and related documents to sustain the finding of encroachment; (iii) Whether non-impleadment of the State of Madhya Pradesh under Order I, Rule 3-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rendered the suit not maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether a suit for encroachment over immovable property was maintainable when the plaint did not contain a sufficient description or exact identification of the disputed portion as required by Order VII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The requirement of Order VII, Rule 3 is that the plaint must describe immovable property in a manner sufficient to identify it, and where identification is possible by boundaries or survey numbers, those particulars must be stated. Where the disputed portion is not specifically identified, the Court cannot effectively determine title, encroachment, or execute the decree. On the pleadings and evidence, the disputed encroached portion was not specified, no map was filed, and the decree would remain unworkable.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable in the form presented, and the plaint was liable to be rejected. This issue was decided against the respondent and in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the absence of proof of demarcation, the appellate court could rely on the panchanama and related documents to sustain the finding of encroachment.

Analysis: The demarcation report was not properly proved. The original revenue records were not summoned, the officials who prepared the measurement were not examined, and the plaintiff did not establish the exact encroached portion. In these circumstances, reliance on the panchanama was unjustified for proving encroachment.

Conclusion: The appellate court erred in relying on the panchanama to uphold encroachment. This issue was decided against the respondent and in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether non-impleadment of the State of Madhya Pradesh under Order I, Rule 3-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rendered the suit not maintainable.

Analysis: The omission to implead the State was treated as an irregularity, not an illegality, and such defect was capable of being cured. It did not by itself defeat the suit on maintainability.

Conclusion: Non-impleadment of the State did not render the suit void or fatally defective. This issue was decided in favour of the respondent on the question of curability, but it did not alter the final result.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the lower appellate court could not stand because the plaint failed to identify the disputed encroached land with sufficient precision and the alleged encroachment was not duly proved. The appeal succeeded and the plaint was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit concerning immovable property must contain a description sufficient to identify the disputed land with precision, and a decree for encroachment cannot be sustained where the disputed portion is not specifically pleaded or proved.

---