ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.:–The petitioner, who is the plaintiff no. 1 in Title Suit No. 1367 of 2014, has challenged the order, dated 15.06.2017, passed by the learned Sub Judge-XIII, Muzaffarpur, whereby the intervention petition filed by the respondent no. 1, who is the own brother of the petitioner-plaintiff, has been allowed and he has been impleaded as party-defendant in the suit.

2. The petitioner, along with his sons and wife, being plaintiff nos. 1 to 4, filed Title Suit No. 1367 of 2014, in which another brother of the petitioner-plaintiff no. 1, Binod Kumar and his son, Ashish Kumar, were made defendants. The said suit has been filed for declaration of title of the plaintiffs upon Schedule-I land, described in the plaint and for confirmation of possession over the said Schedule-I land, inter alia, on the facts that the petitioner-plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant no. 1-respondent no. 2 are the sons of Late Dhurkheli Rai and both brothers are separate in mess and business and their another brother, Bhairo Rai, intervenor petitioner-respondent no. 1 has no concern with the cultivation or business of the other two brothers.

3. The plaintiff no. 4-respondent no. 6 purchased land of C. S. Khata No. 162, C. S. Plot No. 89 and C. S. Khata No. 212, C. S. Plot No. 88, corresponding to R. S. Khata No. 314, R. S. Plot No. 1087M, having an area of 360 sq. ft., equivalent to 04 dhurs, from one Binda Sah, son of Shiv Sah, through registered sale deed, dated 24.06.1985 and since the date of purchase, the aforesaid land has come in peaceful possession of the plaintiff no. 4-respondent no. 6, namely, Neelam Sharma, i.e. the wife of the petitioner-plaintiff no. 1. The defendant no. 1-respondent no. 2 and Dhurkheli Rai, father of the plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 1, jointly purchased the land of C. S. Khata Nos. 162 and 212, C. S. Plot Nos. 88 and 89, corresponding to R. S. Khata No. 314, R. S. Plot No. 1078M, having an area of 580.6 sq. ft., equivalent to 6½ dhurs from Binda Sah, son of Late Shiv Sah, through registered sale deed, dated 2406.1985. After the aforesaid purchase, Dhurkheli Rai, father of plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 1 sold an area of 180.3 sq. ft., equivalent to 02 dhurs, of R. S. Khata No. 314, R. S. Plot No. 1078M, to defendant no. 1, through sale deed no. 15422, dated 07.09.1987. Again, vide registered sale deed, dated 07.09.1987, said Dhurkheli Rai, i.e. father of the plaintiff no. 1, defendant no. 1 and intervenor petitioner sold the land of R. S. Khata No. 314, R. S. Plot No. 1078M, having an area of 110.3 sq. ft, equivalent to 1¼ dhurs, which was purchased through sale deed, dated 24.06.1985, in favour of plaintiff no. 4-respondent no. 6, Neelam Sharma.

4. The petitioner-plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 1- respondent no. 2 purchased the lands of R. S. Khata No. 314, R. S. Plot No. 1078M, having an area of 10 dhurs, through registered sale deed, dated 14.06.1991 from one Kameshwar Prasad Sah, son of Late Binda Sah, to the extent of half and half. The petitioner-plaintiff no. 1 purchased, in the name of his minor sons, plaintiff nos. 2 and 3-respondent nos. 4 and 5 to the extent of 2/3rd area and defendant no. 2-respondent no. 2 purchased the land in the name of his minor son, defendant no. 2-respondent no. 3 to the extent of 1/3rd area of R. S. Khata No. 314, R. S. Plot No. 1078M, having an area of 1.4 decimals, equivalent to 07 dhurs, vide registered sale deed, dated 18.10.2002, from Kameshwar Prasad Sah, son of Binda Sah. The land purchased by defendant no. 1-respondent no. 2 in the name of defendant no. 2-respondent no. 3 has been described in Schedule-II of the plaint; whereas the land purchased by the petitioner-plaintiff no. 1 in the name of plaintiff nos. 2 and 3-respondent nos. 4 and 5 has been described in Schedule-I of the plaint and the plaintiffs have sought for a declaration that the defendants have got no concern with the Schedule-I land mentioned in the plaint and the plaintiffs have got no concern