only out of love and affection and the entire funds for creating of such leasehold rights were that of their father. On this basis plaintiffs are claiming 1/3rd share each in the suit property. They contended that instead of getting sale-deeds in respect of the suit properties executed in joint names of plaintiffs and defendant no.1, the same was illegally executed in the name of defendant no.1 alone. On the basis of these pleadings, plaintiffs are claiming 1/3rd share each in the suit properties. Therefore in the suit plaintiffs challenged the saledeeds on the basis of which the title in respect of the suit properties was acquired by defendant no.1 alone. The sale-deeds were executed in favour of defendant no.1 by defendant nos.5 to 12. However while setting up a challenge to those sale-deeds, plaintiffs possibly did not realize that in the event of their suit being decreed and the sale-deeds being declared null and void, the title in respect of the suit properties would revert to defendant nos.5 to 12. Thus, even after succeeding in the suit, plaintiffs would not have been able to claim any right in the suit properties. Possibly realizing this error in drafting the plaint, the application for amendment appears to have been filed.
