The right of selection of the conveyed land belongs to the purchaser where the conveyance is uncertain in terms of the specific area conveyed.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. This is a Second Appeal by defendants 1, 2 and 7 from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for a declaration of their title to and recovery of possession of 1 bigha 15 kathas 10 dhurs of land comprised in survey plot 944 appertaining to Khata 552 situate in village Brahmpura.

2. The following short admitted pedigree will help in appreciating the respective cases of the parties :

BHAROSI

_________________________|____________________________

| | | | |

Raghunath Ramji Prayag Raghoji Rambilas

_____|______ (deft. 10) = Widow (deft. 8) (deft. 11)

| | (deft. 12) wife

deft. 15 deft. 16 ___________|______ Binda Kuer

|__________ | | (decd.)

| | deft. 13 deft. 14 |

deft. 17 deft. 18 Prabhudayal

(deft. 9)

3. The disputed land originally belonged to A. P. Dutta. He conveyed this plot along with plot 1071 measuring 2 bighas 5 kathas 2 dhurs to Binda Kuer by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 1-9-1919 (Ext. 1 (e)). It will be seen that Binda Kuer was the wife of defendant 8 and mother of defendant 9 and daughter of Rajaram. Raghoji and his son Prabhudayal (defendants 8 and 9) conveyed 10 kathas out of plot 944 to the plaintiffs by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 10-1-1949 (Ext. 1).

They again conveyed 1 bigha 5 kathas 10 dhurs, out of the said plot, in favour of Parasnath by a registered sale deed dated 23-12-1949 (Ext. 1(a)). Subsequently, Parasnath executed a deed of relinquishment (ladavi) in favour of the plaintiffs (Ext. 2). Thus, the plaintiffs based their title to the disputed land on purchases from Raghoji and his son.

4. On the other hand, the title of the defendants is founded on the sale deeds -- one dated 16-5-1944 (Ext. A/1) executed by Rambilas, one of the sons of Bharosi in favour of Deonandan (defendant 19), the second dated 6-2-1949 (Ext. A/2) executed in their favour by Rambahadur who in his turn had purchased the same from Raghoji and another by a sale deed dated 18-10-1948 (Ext. 1 (b)) and the third dated 9-12-1949 (Ext. A/3) executed by Shyama Devi, widow of Prayag (defendant 12).

5. Admittedly, Binda Kuer was the wife of Raghoji (defendant 8) and the daughter of Rajaram. It is well to remember that the first sale deed (Ext. 1 (e)) dated 1-9-1919 was executed by A. P. Dutta in her favour. Further, it is the admitted case of the parties that Binda herself had no title to the disputed land and that she was a mere benamidar. The difference between the parties is as to the person whose benamidar Binda was. According to the plaintiffs she was the benamidar of her father Rajaram.

According to them, the land was actually purchased from A. P. Dutta by Rajaram who had no other issue than the daughter, Binda, and on his death, his son-in-law (defendant 8) and his grandson (defendant 9) inherited the property. Thus, the case of the plaintiffs is that defendants 8 and 9 had exclusive title to the disputed land and that by virtue of the purchase from them, they also acquired a valid title. On the other hand, the defendants pleaded that Binda was the benamidar of Bharosi, her father-in-law.

Their further defence was that all the lands standing in her name constituted the self-acquisition of Bharosi, After Bharosis death, it is alleged, all his self-acquired properties were divided equal- ly among his five sons. They denied that Raghoji and his son Prabhudayal had exclusive title to the disputed land and asserted that by virtue of the purchase from the sons of Bharosi or their transferees they acquired valid title to the disputed land.

6. In short, the plaintiffs claimed title to the disputed land by virtue of pu