JUDGMENT A.K. Sharma, M. - Dilla (District Hardoi) has filed these appeals Nos. 386 (Z) , 387(Z) and 388 (Z) of 69-70/ Hardoi, against (1) Mishai, (2) Chhatar and Durjan and (3) Chhange, Lalta Prasad, Lalit (minor) (substituted as sons of plaintiff Madari. The learned Addl. Commissioner had consolidated the appeal filed before him by the present respondents against the common respondent Dilla and had allowed the appeal. The plaintiff-respondents had filed their several suits under section 209 Z.A. and L.R. Act for the ejectment of Dilla, defendant; from five Biswas of land of each plaintiff which lay in plot No. 1625, in village Sarra, Pargana Bangar. 2. The learned Trial court found that, though Dilla had encroached, he had not matured his possession into Sirdari. He however, did not order ejectment as the land in dispute was not identifiable. Learned Addl. Commissioner reversed the order and decree in so far as it resulted to ejectment, because he was of the view that the question as to which five Biswas belong to which plaintiff was not material as it was a matter inter se the 3 sets of plaintiffs and identifiability was, therefore, not a material point. 3. Neither the respondent nor their counsels were present on the date of hearing despite notice. The appellants counsels was heard ex parte. He argued that under order IX, Rule 3, Civil Procedure code the immovable property which was the subject matter of the suit must be sufficiently described by boundaries or numbers, so as to be identifiable but in all the three cases the area encroached upon in No. 1625 had not been demarcated and was therefore, not identifiable. Further, he said that the area of the plot was stated to be 15 Biswas but was found to be a little over 16 Biswas as per the inspecting Commissioner's report and it was not known which 5 Biswas of this plot had been encroached upon in each case. Learned counsel has referred me to the ruling in 1969 R.D. 179 in which it was held that a suit for declaration was not maintainable if the land was not identifiable and that it was necessary to have the area demarcated or have the holding partitioned before coming up for a declaration. Learned counsel has referred me to the ruling in 1969 R.D. 179 in which it was held that a suit for declaration was not maintainable if the land was not identifiable and that it was necessary to have the area demarcated or have the holding partitioned before coming up for a declaration. He argued that the three sets of appellants were not co-tenants and their cases could not be joined together for overcoming their difficulty of identifiability. 4. I have also gone through the record of the three cases. 5. Learned Addl. Commissioner has stated fact it is true that the different plaintiff have not indicated the locations of their areas within this plot, but that' it is of little consequence. He adds: there is no contest among the plaintiffs inter se. Amongst them they hold the entire plot in equal shares. The plaintiff is occupying the entire plot. Hence if the defendant is ejected and possession delivered to the plaintiffs, they will occupy their respective areas in this plot' This position is not in accordance with the law and the inference is based on presumption. He cannot presume that there is no contest among the plaintiffs inter se. He cannot presume that when decree is executed, each plaintiff will claim his respective area. He also, cannot presume that among themselves the three sets of plaintiffs hold the entire plot in equal shares, simply because the defendant is occupying the whole of this plot and they have each vaguely mentioned in the plaint that the area encroached upon is 5 Biswas, which is one-third of the entire area of the plot. The disposal of the three appeals by one judgment cannot by itself help to create these presumptions. 6. The learned Judicial Officer (Rev.) in his judgment has correctly observed that after all, these are three separate suits and the decree has to be passed separately in each suit and each decree will have to be executed separately'. He has further observed that under these circumstances, it may not be possible to pass an effective decree in favour of the plaintiffs in respective suits and that possession cannot be delivered on plot No. 1625 jointly to all the plaintiffs of all the three suits. He has further observed that under these circumstances, it may not be possible to pass an effective decree in favour of the plaintiffs in respective suits and that possession cannot be delivered on plot No. 1625 jointly to all the plaintiffs of all the three suits. He has pointed out the basic defect of the plaintiff namely, that none of the plaintiff namely, that none of the plaintiffs states the location of their respective areas. This is the true legal position and the learned Addl. Commissioner is not right in holding otherwise. It is none of the court's functions to find a way out for a party. If the party has failed to give specificity and substance to the relief it seeks, the plaintiff itself is not maintainable. It was the duty of the plaintiffs in each of these suits to have stated clearly where exactly their alleged encroached area lay. If they themselves do not know it, it is wrong for the court to take it on itself to tell them where it lay or how it can be got at. The correct position is that if the plaintiff does not state the location, and boundaries of the encroached area, the extent of encroachment and the essential circumstances of the encroachment. He has no case worth looking at. Appellants learned counsel has aptly contended that it is not after all a co-tenancy. 7. I, therefore, allow the appeal with costs and Rs. thirty as the counsels fees in each of the three cases. 8. This order will govern appeal Nos. 387 and 388 also.