There is some dispute as to whether defendants 17 and 18 had succeeded in getting actual possession of the land or only symbolic possession was delivered to them, but the point is number of any importance because there is numberquestion of adverse possession in this case and defendants 1 to 4 who were some of the original tenants and who resisted the plaintiffs claim had numbersubsisting interest in the property.
The lower appellate companyrt dismissed the suit on the view that the document was a deed of sale by which defendants 17 and 18 sold raiyati rights in the land to the plaintiffs which the said defendants themselves did number possess.
3 was labelled as a deed of sale, it was really a lease of the land given by the two companysharer landlords, defendants 17 and 18, to the plaintiffs.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit holding that though Ex.
In 1949, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of their title to the land and recovery of possession.
3 in respect of the property in favour of the plaintiffs who are the respondents in the present appeal.
The plaintiffs claim of title is based on the document Ex.
3 and the only question involved in this appeal relates to the character of this document.
