Section 5 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), A XXII, R 19 Duterte's description of Dowager's immovable property, related to the claim of the wife not to mention the dispute, which relates to the immovable property, Was not done The marriage effect may refer to the O XXII, R 19, CPC, for the purpose that the decree for the recovery of immovable property shall be sufficient in its description. This was possible only if the property was adequately described or the identification of the immovable property was necessary for the execution of the decree by the court because it could not go beyond the terms of the decree because of the wife. The claim of 100 kanal of arable land was unrecognizable as it does not specify the exact location of a particular village without specifying the area. There will be no specific details for the approval of the decree for its recovery, and the decree passed in such ambiguous terms would be inappropriate. Due to the lack of proper description of the 100 kanal of agricultural land, no order can be given to the wife for her recovery, even the money cannot be ordered in the alternative. The property should be awarded in the absence of identification as there is no basis for valuing it, with regard to the claim of the wife of the 2 kanal house, her marriage value was mentioned at the time of marriage in the marriage, though the marital agreement was mentioned. I was not described in enough detail. It has been examined, the wife gave a decree on the basis of such diagnosis
