JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in-spite of repeated calls though notices have validly been served upon the respondents. Hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte against the respondents. 3. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 14.02.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C.- III, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No.10 of 2005 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal and did not interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being the court of Sub-Ordinate Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.112 of 2001. 4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the defendants purchased 1.13 acres of land consisting of 10 plots from the previous rightful successor and recorded owner namely Kartik Rajwar and Badal Rajwar both sons of Babulal Rajwar. After purchase, the defendant no.1 mutually divided the lands according to the share among the three brothers namely Tarapada, Debendra and Sudhir Chandra and each got 37 ½ decimals of land each. One of the brothers Debendra Chandra Aash sold 19 decimals of land out of his share to Ajit Kumar Dutta by registered sale deed and delivered possession of land to him. Subsequently, Debendra Chandra Aash sold his remaining share out of the land to Bablu Bouri on a reasonable consideration by a registered sale deed. Later Ajit Kumar Dutta also sold 19 decimals of land purchased from Debendra Chandra Aash to Bablu Bouri by registered sale deed. Bablu Bouri thus become the rightful owner and came in possession of the said land by virtue of the said two sale deeds executed in his favour and acquired permanent and indefeasible right by prescription upon 37 ½ decimals of land because of being in continuous and peaceful possession of the same by virtue of sale deeds. Bablu Bouri while thus in possession of the said land sold 31 decimals of land described in Schedule II of the plaint to the plaintiff by sale deed no.2059 dated 03.04.1998 for a consideration of Rs.15,000/- and delivered possession of the land to the plaintiff. Sudhir Chandra Aash, the younger brother of the defendant no.1 died leaving behind the defendant no.2 as his only legal representative and successor. Sudhir Chandra Aash, the younger brother of the defendant no.1 died leaving behind the defendant no.2 as his only legal representative and successor. As the defendants did not allow the plaintiff to construct the shop on the suit land, the suit was filed with the following prayers: (a) for decree of permanent injunction against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants to come upon the suit land and to cause any obstruction to the plaintiff in the construction of a new room on the said suit land; and (b) Cost of the suit. 5. The defendants on the written statement besides contesting the suit being not maintainable on various technical grounds further pleaded that there was no partition between the brothers and the defendant no.1. The defendants further pleaded the since the description of the land and the sale deed in question is vague, hence they denied that the vendor Babulal ever possessed 37 ½ decimals of land and in the absence of any partition between the defendant no.1 and his brothers, the possession of the brother cannot be adverse. The defendants denied the possession of the plaintiff or his vendor of the suit land and pleaded that the claim of the possession of the plaintiff and his vendor over the suit land is mere pretense and the suit is barred under the provision of the Specific Relief Act. 6. On the basis of rival submissions of the parties, the following four issues were framed by the learned trial court:- (i) Whether the suit is maintainable? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action? (iii) Whether there has been a partition between the three brothers and the defendant no.1? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to reliefs prayed for? 7. Learned trial court first took up issue no. iii and after considering the evidence in the record i.e. the five witnesses examined by the plaintiff and the documents which have been marked Ext. 1 to Ext. 2/b; came to the conclusion that there has not been any partition between the three brothers and the defendant no.1 and answered the issue no. iii against the plaintiff. Thereafter, the learned trial court took up issue no. 1 to Ext. 2/b; came to the conclusion that there has not been any partition between the three brothers and the defendant no.1 and answered the issue no. iii against the plaintiff. Thereafter, the learned trial court took up issue no. iv and considering the evidence that there is no boundary mentioned in the part plot of land and in the boundary of the land in the sale deed, it has been mentioned that in the north and east, vacant lands are existing but it has not been mentioned as to whose vacant lands, the same were, came to the conclusion that the description of the suit land is vague and on that score also the suit is not maintainable; as no permanent injunction can be granted in respect of a land, the description of which is vague. The trial court went on to hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. Thereafter, the learned trial court took up issue nos. i and ii and on the basis of the finding of the issue nos. iii and iv answered the issue nos. i and ii against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit on contest. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Ordinate Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.112 of 2001 dated 10.12.2004, the plaintiff-appellant filed Title Appeal No.10 of 2005 in the court of District Judge, Dhanbad and the same was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. 9. The learned first appellate court made an independent appreciation of evidence in record and considering the fact that P.W.2 who is one of the material witness examined by the plaintiff-appellant has disclosed that he has no knowledge about the earlier transaction in respect of the suit land and he cannot state the boundary of the suit land and that the P.W.3- the plaintiff-appellant himself has not stated about any partition between the three brothers and the defendant no.1- respondent no.1 observed that, it appears that in the absence of any evidence in the record, the plaintiff-appellant could not establish that there was a partition between the brothers and the defendant no.1- respondent no.1 till the same was sold to Ajit Kumar Dutta and Bablu Bouri and also concurred with the trial court, that from the schedule of Ext. 1/1, it appears that there is no specific pleading given therein in respect of the land in dispute and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to establish his case, hence, the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to any decree of permanent injunction and dismissed the appeal. 10. At the time of hearing of second appeal vide order dated 26.08.2009, the following two substantial questions of law were formulated:- (1.) Whether both the Courts below have committed serious error of law in appreciating the facts and law involved in the suit? (2.) Whether in the light of the prima facie evidence of acquisition of right by the plaintiffs-respondents in respect of suit property to the extent of share of one of the co-owners and possession over the same, the suit ought to have been dismissed? 11. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective. It is next submitted by Mr. Prasad that both the courts below have failed to consider the fact that in the written statement, the defendants-respondents have not specifically denied the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and their vendor. Hence, the suit ought to have been decreed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. It is next submitted by Mr. Prasad that the sale deed marked Ext. 1/1 is also annexed with a map. Hence, both the courts below ought not to have come to a conclusion that the description of the suit land is vague. Hence, it is submitted that both the courts below having committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence and law involved in the suit. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant be decreed. 12. Hence, it is submitted that both the courts below having committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence and law involved in the suit. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant be decreed. 12. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in record, it is pertinent to mention here that Order VII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure envisages that when the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. Now a close look at the plaint of the plaintiff, reveals that the plaintiff-appellant claim that the suit plot consisting of 31 decimals is carved out from different plots having 2 different plot number, out of the 2 different plots having 2 distinct plot numbers; one plot is of area 42 decimals and other plot is of area 16 decimals but no map has been attached to the plaint. The boundaries mentioned in the plaint do not tally with the boundaries of the sale deed marked Ext. 1/1 as though in the plaint, in the south, Railway line has been shown to be existing but the map attached to Ext.1/1 shows that in the south there is a dahibari colliery road. Similarly though in the plaint, it has been mentioned that in the east there is fallow lands but in the map attached to Ext. 1/1 shows that in the east, abandoned railway line exist. In the plaint to the west of the land, road has been shown to be existing but in the map to the west others land have been shown to be existing. Further though in the plaint in the north and east, fallow land has been mentioned without mentioning whose land it is but in the map attached to Ext. 1/1 in the north paddy land and in the west others land have been mentioned without specifying whose land it is. Further though in the plaint in the north and east, fallow land has been mentioned without mentioning whose land it is but in the map attached to Ext. 1/1 in the north paddy land and in the west others land have been mentioned without specifying whose land it is. So in the considered view of this Court, the description of the suit land which is claimed to have been carved out from the two separate plots of land is insufficient to identify the suit land with any definiteness. Thus, the prayer for permanent injunction cannot be allowed where the description of the suit land is vague. Thus, the suit of permanent injunction simpliciter is not maintainable on the ground of vague description of the suit land. 13. Now coming to the second substantial question of law, both the learned courts below have come to a finding of fact that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to establish possession over the suit land. There is no perversity in such finding of fact by both the courts below. The plaintiff-appellant though has not prayed the relief of declaration of title by adverse possession but certainly pleaded that the vendor of the plaintiff-appellant namely Babulal had acquired permanent indefensible right by prescription inter alia being in possession continuously and peacefully on the strength of the purchases made by him to the knowledge of the defendant-respondent nos. 1 and 2 but the courts below have also not believed the said facts pleaded by the plaintiff-appellant. Thus, when the description of the suit land is vague one in a suit simpliciter for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from coming on the suit land and to cause any obstruction to the plaintiff-appellant in the construction of a new room and when the description of the land and the sale deed did not match the description of the land given in the plaint as already indicated in the foregoing paragraphs in detail, certainly will be of no help to the plaintiff-appellant to entitle him for a decree. The second substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 14. The second substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 14. Now coming to the first substantial question of law whether both the Courts below have committed serious error of law in appreciating the facts and law involved in the suit, this Court after going through the materials in the record do not find any serious error of law or in appreciation of evidence of the case has been made by the courts below. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 15. In view of the discussions made above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed ex-parte but in the circumstances without any costs. 16. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent to learned court concerned forthwith.