( 1 ) THE property in litigation belonged originally to Mangrulal Ahir. The plaintiff's case is that on Mangruyal's death, his widow and minor sons, defendants Nos. 3 to 7, became owners of the land as his heirs. The plaintiff purchased this property from defendants Nos. 3 to 7 by a kobala dated the 12th July 1948. In the meantime, on the 1st April 1946 defendant No. 1 had obtained a lease from Kanai Lal Ahir in respect of the land described in Schedule B of the plaint, forming part of the property left by Mangiulal. Kanai Lal executed that deed of lease on behalf of himself and also as guardian of Keshab Prasad Ahir, defendant No. 3. After obtaining the lease, defendant No. 1 filled up the tank in the land of Schedule B and also erected a structure. In that lease, Kanai Lal described himself as the son of Mangrulal Ahir. The plaintiff's case is that Kanailal was not Mangrulal's son but was the son of Mangrulal's wife Babuna by a former husband. He had, therefore, no interest in the land and defendant No. 1 acquired no interest by the lease. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration of his title to the land described in Schedule B, a declaration that the deed of l