that the suit land is having a dilapidated house, thus there is nothing in record to suggest that the suit land is a tand land which is cultivable in nature. The sale deed marked Ext. 1 , shows that the subject matter, in respect of which, the same is executed, is a tanr anischit ek fasli land, thus the description of the land transferred, does not match with the suit land. Learned First Appellate Court considered the admissions made by the PW5 that the house of the defendant no. 1 and 2 are over the suit plot, which is kuccha in nature. In the west of the suit house, there is also house of Most. Kamla Kunwar inside the house of defendant no. 1 and 2 and in para 38 of his crossexamination, PW 5 has admitted that Most. Kamla Kunwar had sold her entire interest except the suit land in favour of the contesting defendants. PW 5 admitted that they have no house in village Khami Rajahara and no ration card or the name in the voter list in the village Khami Rajahara. Learned First appellate Court observed that the evidence of the plaintiff supports the case of contesting defendants to the extent that Most. Kamla Kunwar and her husband purchased some land in the Khami Rajahara and after transferring the land of the Rajahara, from the contesting defendants and went on to observe that the plaintiff failed to establish his suit plot or the suit land in any manner and by thus, considering, came to the conclusion that the sale deed in shape of Ext. 1 did not effect any sale in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the suit land and the same does not confer any title to the plaintiff. Learned First Appellate Court also observed that documentary evidence has to be given more weight than the oral evidence and as there is admission of the plaintiff regarding all the documents regarding identity of the deceased- respondent no. 3- Most. Kamla Kunwar including the ration, and voter card belongs to
