JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for partition which has been dismissed solely on the ground that the plaintiff did not take out a survey commission to prove that the property in suit lay in plot No. 360 of Khasra abadi of the village concerned. There was no dispute about the identity of the property in suit which was sought to be partitioned, and is in the nature of a house. In the description given at the foot of the plaint, the plaintiff had, in addition to the boundaries of the property and the other description of the house which was sufficient to fix its identity, also said that it lay in plot No. 360 of khasra abadi of the village Gangnauli, Pargana Nagal of district Saharanpur. In the written statement, while denying the other allegations in the plaint, the defendant had also said that in the particulars of the property, as given in the plaint, it was not admitted that its khasra number was 360. The reason for this denial appears to have been as brought out by the plaintiffs answer in cross-examination, that he had alleged that the khasra number of the property was 360 because he saw the names of Lala, his father and Shri Ram, his uncle recorded against the same. The defendant's denial of the khasra number was obviously directed to disputing the plaintiffs title to the property in suit by denying its connection with the evidence of title. Its identity was never in dispute nor was it suggested that the property did not belong to Lala. The issue was whether the plaintiff was the son of Lala. However, on the defendant's denial of the correctness of the plot number of the property with reference to the khasra abadi, an issue was raised at the trial, being issue 7; "Whether property in suit lies in khasra No. 360?" The issue having been raised, the plaintiff was required to take out a survey commission by the trial court's order, dated the 14th May, 1968, saying that survey was necessary. The plaintiff did take the necessary steps for the issue of a survey commission which was issued to the court amin. The amin returned the parwana unexecuted due to rain. The parwana was reissued to the amin. The plaintiff did take the necessary steps for the issue of a survey commission which was issued to the court amin. The amin returned the parwana unexecuted due to rain. The parwana was reissued to the amin. It was again returned by the amin on the ground of want of fixed points from which survey might have been made. The trial Court ordered on the 16th October, 1968 ; "31-C : By amin returning parwana unexecuted for want of fixed points. Parties to file fixed points by 16-11-68." Sd. Illegible. On 16-11-1968, the trial court again ordered : "No fixed point filed. Parties to file fixed points by 16-1-69 failing which the case shall be enlisted for final hearing." Sd. Illegible. On 16-1-1969, the trial Court ordered : "No fixed point filed. Fix 16-4-69 for F. H. inform. Sd illeaihle. The amin's report dated the 8th September. 1968, had disclosed that he could not find any fixed point on the spot in spite of having tried to locate the same. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that a party cannot be required to do the impossible, and on its failure to do so to be meted with a dismissal of the suit. It is not a case where the plaintiff did not take the necessary steps for the issue of a survey commission as directed by the court. The survey could not be made because there were no fixed point from which the khasra numbers of the several buildings in the abadi might have been fixed. If it had been possible to have the plot number fixed by survey with reference to any fixed points, surely the plaintiff would not have been slow in pointing out the same to the amin when he went to make the survey or in placing the necessary materials before the court when the parties were required to 'file fixed points." In the circumstances, the dismissal of the plaintiffs suit on the ground that he did not have the property in suit surveyed, was wholly unjustified. The identity of the property was not in dispute. It was not disputed that Lala was one of the owners of the property. It was found that the plaintiff is the son of Lala, that Ami Chand died issueless and the suit was not bad for nonjoinder of Mangat Ram. The identity of the property was not in dispute. It was not disputed that Lala was one of the owners of the property. It was found that the plaintiff is the son of Lala, that Ami Chand died issueless and the suit was not bad for nonjoinder of Mangat Ram. On these findings the suit could not be dismissed. 3. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The decree dismissing the suit is set aside. The plaintiffs share in the property is declared to be one-half. The finding of the trial court on issue 6 that the defendant had made improvements valued at Rs. 150/- in the property in suit is confirmed. This fact shall be taken into account in the proceedings for preparation of the final decree. The plaintiff shall now apply to the trial court for division of the property into two equal parts, and, on such application being made, the trial court shall proceed to divide the property accordingly. While doing so, it shall keep in mind the fact that the defendant had made improvements worth Rs. 150/- in the property. After division of the property into two equal parts, the final decree shall be drawn up, and the plaintiff shall be put into separate possession over the portion allotted to him. The plaintiff is entitled to his costs throughout.