The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.158 of 1988 seeking the relief of recovery of possession and mesne profits from defendants 1 to 3 and claiming damage at Rs.4,912/- from defendants 4 and 5. The suit was dismissed by the decree and judgment dated 2.11.2000. Challenging the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No.127 of 2000. Confirming the dismissal of the suit, the appeal was also dismissed. In the appeal, application was filed in I.A.No.46 of 2000 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., seeking permission of the court to adduce additional evidence. This I.A. was also dismissed.

2. The plaintiff has filed the second appeal challenging the concurrent dismissal.

2.1. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether the Courts below is justified in rejecting the plaintiff's title to the suit property despite upholding the validity of sale in her favour on the ground of non identification of the suit property?

2. Is not the onus, on the defendants 4 and 5, being the vendors of the suit property, to prove the identification of the property, and failure to do so, made them liabl