The land in question was purchased subsequent to the partition and a sale deed was obtained in the joint names of all the three parties and at that point of time they were separate.
5 had an equal one third share share in the land which was purchased in the joint names of all the three of them.
The registered sale deed under which the land was purchased revealed that the two petitioners and the fifth respondent had purchased this land in their joint names.
Under the circumstances, the view taken by the Assistant Director was perfectly valid and the Director, Consolidation, was number justified in allowing the revision preferred by respondent No.
