JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY , J. 1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2016 (decree sealed and signed on 27.06.2016) passed by learned Principal District Judge, Sahibganj in Title Appeal No. 13 of 2015 whereby the appeal has been dismissed. Trial court judgment is dated 28 th July, 2015 (decree sealed and signed on 07.08.2015) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Sahibganj in Title Suit No. 30 of 2007. 3. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has referred to the order dated 09.11.2017 by which this appeal was admitted framing following substantial question of law:- “Whether both the courts below have equally erred in holding title of the plaintiffs over Schedule “B” land without ascertaining the total area of Jamabandi No. 525 and the areas of Jamabandi No. 525/938 & 525/939?” 4. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the description of property as claimed by the plaintiffs was vague and therefore the learned courts could not have decreed the suit without ascertaining the total area of Jamabandi No. 525 and the areas of Jamabandi No. 525/938 and 525/939. The learned senior counsel has submitted that as per the sketch map it is not clear as to where is the location of Jamabandi No. 525/938 and 525/939 and therefore the substantial question of law is fit to be answered in favour of the appellants and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts are fit to be set aside. The learned counsel has submitted that on account of vagueness in connection with suit property, both the judgments are fit to be set aside. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the suit property along with its boundary and sketch map was given in the map itself and there was no vagueness in the suit property and therefore the substantial question of law as framed is fit to be answered in favour of the respondents. The learned counsel has submitted that upon perusal of the plaint itself it would be apparent that there was no need for measurement of total areas of Jamabandi No. 525 and also the area of Jambandi No. 525/938 and Jamabandi No. 525/939. 6. The learned counsel has submitted that upon perusal of the plaint itself it would be apparent that there was no need for measurement of total areas of Jamabandi No. 525 and also the area of Jambandi No. 525/938 and Jamabandi No. 525/939. 6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and upon going through the materials on record this court finds that as per the plaint, the plaintiffs were the owners and possessor of land bearing J.B. No. 525/938 measuring 1-3-2 dhur recorded in the name of Sarju Gope and Indradeo Gope father of the plaintiff nos. 5 and 6 and J.B. No. 525/939 measuring 1-3-2 dhur of Mouza Sobhanpur Ganga Prasad recorded in the name of plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 and same has been described in Schedule-A of the plaint with boundaries . The Schedule-A of the plaint is quoted as under: - “ Schedule A In the District of Sahibganj, Sub-division of Sahibganj, P.S-Sahibganj (M), land of mouza Sobhanpur Ganga Prasad bearing J.B No. 525/938 measuring 1-3-2 dhur and land of J.B No. 525/939 measuring 1-3-2 dhur total 2-6-4 dhur bounded by North - Lakhan Yadav and others South - Dakinath Goshala lands East - Village school and lands of Sita Gope and West - Ram Lakhan Yadav, Ramashish Yadav and others unsurveyd lands Rocky and Pahari lands.” 7. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the land was the ancestral land of the plaintiffs and they got their name mutated in the government records. The plaintiffs and defendants have common ancestors. 8. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants had greedy eyes over the suit land of the plaintiffs and came to the land in the month of August 2005 during rainy season and kept their cattle on the land to save the cattle from flood and rain and they were verbally permitted to do so and the permission of the plaintiffs has been separately described in Schedule-B of the plaint. The permission was granted only for a few months and the defendants also constructed shed for protection from rain. The permission was granted only for a few months and the defendants also constructed shed for protection from rain. The schedule-B of the property is quoted as under:- “ Schedule B In the district and sub-division of Sahibganj P.S. Sahibganj (M) lands of mouza Sobhanpur Ganga Prasad unserveyed pahari rocky lands bearing J.B No. 525/938 and 525/039 total lands of Schedule 'A' measuring 2-6-4 dhur out of which the following lands in the occupation of the defendants : I. Land measuring about 15 part of Schedule 'A' land by North- Loknath Yadav and other by South : lands of plaintiffs and by east: lands of the plaintiffs and by west : Ramlakhan Yadav and Ramashish Yadav and others Il Land measuring about one katha which is part of Schedule "A' land bounded by north : land of plaintiffs. By south lands of plaintiffs by cast : lands of plaintiffs any by west : lands of plaintiffs. Total 16 katha valued at ? 16,000/- along with cattle sheds four in numbers and cattle situated on the said lands as per sketch map shown below:” Sketch map of suit lands 1. 2. North : Lands of Loknath Yadav and others 3. West : Ramlakhan Gope, Ramashish and others 4. East : School of the village and Sita Gope and others 5. The plaint also has a sketch map and that sketch map has also been quoted in the decree passed in the Title Suit. The sketch map of schedule-A property reveals that it is total-2-6-4 dhurs (twice of 1-3-2 dhurs) and within Schedule-A there are two distinct areas; one consisting of 15 katthas of land and other consisting of 1 katthas of land; both the portions have been earmarked as schedule-B of the property. The boundary of schedule A property and boundary of schedule B properties have been given in the plaint and the plaintiffs are claiming entire schedule A property and seeking recovery of schedule B properties situated within schedule A property. The sketch map reveals the total area of schedule A property which is equivalent to total of J.B. No. 528/938 and 529/938 each measuring 1-3-2 dhur and the boundaries of the two taken together has been mentioned in the plaint. 6. Before the learned Trial Court, following issues were framed for consideration which are quoted as under: - “I. Is the suit framed maintainable? II. 6. Before the learned Trial Court, following issues were framed for consideration which are quoted as under: - “I. Is the suit framed maintainable? II. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit? III. Is the suit barred by the principle of waiver, acquiescence, estoppel and Limitation? IV. Whether the plaintiffs are owner and title holder of the suit land? V. Whether the defendants have acquired title over the suit land by adverse possession? VI. Whether the defendants are in permissive possession of the suit land? VII. Whether the plaintiffs entitled to the reliefs as claimed for in the suit?” 7. From the perusal of Trial court’s judgment, it is apparent that no issue was framed in connection with vagueness of the suit property and even from the perusal of written statement filed by the defendants before learned trial court, there is no plea that the description of the suit property or the area of the suit property is vague. Rather the case of the defendants in the written statement was that the land was vacant and the defendants came in possession of the property in the year 1972 and they were claiming adverse possession over the schedule-B property. The learned trial court while deciding issue no. (IV) has recorded that the plaintiffs had title over the J.B. No. 525/938 and 525/939 , i.e. mentioned in schedule A property and there is no dispute with respect to title of the plaintiffs over schedule A property on the basis of materials on record. The learned court also recorded that the defendants in the written statement showed distinct boundary of land in their possession, different from schedule A and B of the suit land and held that the defendants are not going to be prejudiced if schedule B land is given to the plaintiffs. 8. Before the learned 1 st Appellate Court, the argument was advanced that as per the written statement, the cause of action was false and imaginary and the property is unidentifiable and vague, bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, principle of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and limitation . The learned 1 st Appellate court framed the point for consideration in paragraph 9 which is as under: - “9. On the basis of pleadings following points are to be taken into consideration. The learned 1 st Appellate court framed the point for consideration in paragraph 9 which is as under: - “9. On the basis of pleadings following points are to be taken into consideration. (I) Now the point for consideration before this Court is that, whether the plaintiffs were the owner and title holder of the suit land before the Court below? (II) Whether the defendants had acquired title over the suit land by adverse possession or they were in permissive possession of the suit land? (III) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is sustainable in the eye of law or not?” 9. The learned 1 st Appellate Court observed that though in the written statement the boundary given by the appellants/ defendants are quite different with regard to (Schedule-A &B) property but the question for determination before the court was as to whether the plaintiffs/respondents is the owner and title holder of the suit land or not. The learned Appellate Court after discussing the materials on record held that the plaintiffs have been able to prove that they are owners and title holders of the suit land and the point no. (1) was decided in their favour. While deciding point of determination no. (2) the learned 1 st Appellate Court has also considered the pleadings and has discussed the oral and documentary evidences placed on record and recorded a finding that the defendants were allowed by the plaintiffs to construct their cattle shed over the suit land of Jamabandi No. 525 and were having permissive possession and they could not deny the title of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The learned 1 st appellate court ultimately dismissed the appeal. 10. This court also finds that the plea of adverse possession with respect to the suit property as raised by the defendants was also rejected by both the courts. 11. This court finds that the learned courts have considered the oral evidence with respect to the boundaries and location of the property and the plaint itself had a sketch map which was part of Schedule-B and the boundaries etc. of the property was duly established by the plaintiffs. 12. The learned court has recorded a clear finding that the plaintiffs have title over Jamabandi No. 525/938 and 525/939 (schedule A property) based on scrutiny of materials on record. of the property was duly established by the plaintiffs. 12. The learned court has recorded a clear finding that the plaintiffs have title over Jamabandi No. 525/938 and 525/939 (schedule A property) based on scrutiny of materials on record. Further, the boundary and also the area of the schedule A property was also well defined. The schedule B property was within the schedule A property as per the plaint and it also had given boundaries and schedule B property was also in two parts and area was also well defined. This court finds that the learned 1 st appellate court has given concurrent findings with regards to title of the plaintiffs over the suit property and rejected the claim of adverse possession by the defendants. Thus, this court finds that the schedule A as well as schedule B properties were well defined having definite boundaries and schedule B properties were within schedule A property and therefore the description of properties cannot be said to be vague. 13. This court is of the view that once the property stood identified, the description of the property cannot be said to be vague and merely because there was no measurement with respect to the total area of Jamabandi Nos. 525/938 and 525/939, the same is not fatal to the case of the plaintiffs. 14. This court is of the considered view that both the courts have not committed any error in holding plaintiffs’ title over Schedule “B” land and there was no need to ascertain the total area of Jamabandi No. 525 and the areas of Jamabandi No. 525/938 & 525/939. The substantial question of law is hereby answered against the appellants (defendants) and in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs). This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 15. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 16. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit