plaintiff, this Court cannot go into those aspects once again as it has achieved finality. It was deposed on oath by the plaintiff as well as documentary evidence was produced to prove, that all the defendants were the owners and possessors of land Sy.No.114. The testimony of DW 1 Babu, who is defendant No.1, would also show that he was also claiming ownership over Sy.No.114. According to him, his share is to the extent of 6 Acres 20 Gunthas, but then he has not given the place/ location of the land, which has come to his share. No doubt, in the cross-examination it was extracted that his 6 Acre 20 Gunthas land is not adjacent to the plaintiff's land and only the land belonging to defendant Nos.2 and 3 is adjacent to the land belonging to the plaintiff. He also says that his land is towards western side of the stremlet. He has produced the Hissa Form at Exh.70 to support his contention, however, it is to be noted that it cannot be said to be a proper evidence to come to that conclusion. No such contention, as raised in his testimony, was taken in the written statement. If he was not at all concerned with the encroached area, then he ought to have pleaded and proved the same. The testimony of defendant No.1 would show, that at one breath he claims ownership over the entire property and at another breath he says, that there was a partition between him and the other co-sharers. He has not given the
