the scope of second appeal, but to put beyond pale of doubt any such flimsy defence taken by the defendant/cross objector, Bhura Ram, the sale-deed claimed to be executed in favour of Bhura Ram and Pukhraj by Jethu Singh @ Jutha Singh, does not inspire any confidence and the description of the said property does not tally or match with the suit property and the same cannot be claimed to be valid defence against the eviction of the defendant/tenant, Sankal Chand, now represented by his legal heirs as well as the sub-tenant, Bhura Ram, from the said plot of land in question, the identity and measurement of which are not in doubt and fact is that plot of land measuring 54' x 120' owned half share each by the plaintiff No.1, Hansraj S/o Kewalji and Pratapmal S/o Hastimal, which was later on transferred in favour of plaintiffs No.2 and 3, namely, Jawant Raj S/o Shiv Raj and Champalal S/o Jawant Raj and the said plot being surrounded by “Stone-Pattis”, having been admitted by the original tenant, Sankal Chand himself in the first round of litigation in Suit No.8/1969, as well as the legal representatives of defendant No.1 to 6, who were examined by the learned trial court also, there is no doubt that the subsequent sale-deed claimed by said Bhura Ram, who himself does not appear before the learned trial court, nor the co-owner, namely, Pukhraj S/o Premchand Oswal,
