This appeal arises from a decree by which the trial court dismissed the suit for partition. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents the defendants. Plaint B schedule immovable property belonged to Raru, grandfather of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. Raru died in 1991. On the allegation that Raru bequeathed the property to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 and they became equally entitled to it the plaintiff instituted the suit for division of the property into six and separation of his share. Later, defendants 6 to 8 were impleaded on the allegation that they claimed right over a portion of the plaint B schedule property which has been described in the plaint C schedule. Defendants 1 to 5 did not contest the suit. Defendants 6 to 8 filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 have no right, title or interest in the property which is in their possession and it lies within well defined boundaries and it is not part of plaint B schedule property. After the trial the learned Sub Judge found that there is no evidence to prove that the plaint C schedule property is part of the plaint B schedule property which is sought to be p