schedule A of the plaint did not exclusively belonged to Karamchand Ram only rather it belonged jointly to the three brothers – Kashinath Ram, Thakur Nath, and Karamchand Ram and they all had right, title, interest and possession over the respective land and thus, answered the issue no. (vi) and (vii) in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. Learned court thereafter took up issue no. (viii) and considering the materials in the record, came to the conclusion that since Kashinath Ram had only 1 decimal of land as on the date of the execution of the sale deed, hence, the sale deed can not be binding upon the defendants and their vendor and decided the issue no. (viii) in favour of the defendants. Learned trial court next took up issue no. (ix) and (x) together and considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that from the Hukumnama , marked Exhibit C it appeared to the trial court that the suit land was settled in the name of the all three brothers and after the death of Karamchand Ram, the land was inherited by the three sons and widow and the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant no. 1 for 5-2/3 decimals of the land, out of the total 8 decimals in plot no. 1760 and the sale deed executed in favor of the defendant no. 1 was genuine and the rent receipt also has been granted to the defendant no. 1. Therefore, the sale deed dated 31.08.1985, is legal and valid and binding document. Thus, the defendants have right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and in view of the oral and documentary evidence, adduced by the parties, learned trial court also held that the defendant no. 5 Thakur Das has also got right, title, interest and possession over the land coming in his share in partition, hence, learned trial court decided issue no. (ix) and (x) in favour of the defendants. Learned trial court disposed of issue nos. (iii), (iv), (v) and (xi) as not pressed and lastly, took up issue nos. (i), (ii) and (xii) together and observed that from the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit is not maintainable and
