made in paragraph 2 of the written statement averring that suit land is part of Khasra No. 583/3, but during the course of the evidence defendant No. 1 himself in paragraph 7 of his statement admitted the fact that plaintiff is in possession of Khasra No. 583/4 whereas he is in possession of Khasra No. 583/3, and admittedly, the defendant was granted patta of land bearing Khasra No. 583/3 vide Ex. D/2. Even otherwise, during course of the trial, defendants did not seriously peruse the said plea which is apparent by the fact that no issue of identity of land was struck by the trial court and the defendants did not raise any grievance with regard to identity of the land, as such, the defendants, having contested the suit in open eye that he (defendant No. 1) is the title and possession holder of land bearing Khasra No. 583/3 vide Ex. D/2 and plaintiff is title and possession holder of 583/4, cannot be permitted to raise a grievance on the ground that renumbering patta of Khasra No. 583/4 by which it was renumbered as Khasra No. 942 was not produced on record by the plaintiff. The identity of the suit land is clearly established on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record including the
