from the said Udairam. As against that, the respondentsdefendants had examined the respondent No.1 Bhanwarlal as DW-1, who stated interalia that the petitioners were never in possession of the suit land and that they had taken the possession from one Udairam, who was paid Rs.2,50,000/-. He had also stated that the respondentsdefendants had purchased the suit land from the legal heirs of the Ganga Sahai by executing the sale deed on 08.07.1991. The respondents had also examined other witnesses, who had stated interalia that the said Udairam was in possession, and the present petitioners-plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land. Hence, appreciating the said evidence, the trial court has rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioners-plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession of the suit land. Though, it is true that the suits were filed by the legal heirs of the Ganga Sahai against the petitioners, alleging that the petitioners had encroached upon the said suit land, and had also sought possession in the said suit, which suit was filed in the year 1981, however it is pertinent to note that the petitioners had failed to prove that they had continued to remain in possession since 1981 till 1992, when they were allegedly dispossessed by the respondents-defendants. The respondents also appear to have filed the receipt and the affidavit executed by the said Udairam, which were
