JUDGMENT

1. This is a plaintiffs' first appeal against a decree of the learned Civil Judge of Sultanpur dismissing their claim' for possession of certain areas of land of village Nanemau. It appears from the judgment (Exs. A-2 and A-3) of the settlement Court that the village of Nanemau comprised three thoks, namely thok Lachhmi Kant, thok Teja Singh and thok Sanghail Rai. The cosharers of each of these three thoks brought a suit for a declaration of their pukhtadari rights in 5 biswas against Sitla Baksh Singh, the then talukdar. The settlement Court said:

Although no claim for pukhtadari can be brought for such land as is given for maintenance but the defendants have no objection if the land to the extent in the possession of the plaintiffs be declared to be the under-proprietary holding of the plaintiffs and proper jama be assessed.

2. Accordingly on 31st July 1869, a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs to the suit in the following terms:

TABLE

3. The decree in respect of thok Lachhmi Kant, with which we are concerned in this appeal, was in favour of Dirgaj Singh and Balwanta Singh and that thok was divided into the following five pattis: (1) Patti Balwant Singh, (2) Patti Dirgaj Singh, (3) Patti Shankar Singh, (4) Patti Murat Singh and (5) Patti Hanoman Singh.

4. On 26th November 1880, the talukdar obtained a decree for arrears of rent (Ex. A-5) for 1285 and 1286-F against the under-proprietors to the extent of Rupees 1353-6-11 and costs. So far as thok Lachhmi Kant was concerned, the amount decreed against Balwanta Singh was Rs. 693-4-9. In 1882 the taluqdar sued the under-proprietors again for arrears of rent in respect of 1287 to 1289-F (vide Ex. A-6) and on 6th November 1882 a decree (Ex. A-7) was passed for Rs. 1772-7-0 together with Rs. 125-12-0 costs. The cosharers of thok Lachhmi Kant were liable under this decree to the extent of Rs. 1176-12-9 and Rupees 82-15-0 costs. On 19th July 1883 Shitab Rai, general agent of the taluqdar, put in an application for execution (Ex. 3) of the decree of 6th November 1882 in which he prayed that the decretal amount be realized by sale of the pukhtadari haqiat of the judgment-debtors. The previous decree of 1880 also appears to have been put in execution though the application for execution is not on the record, as the order (Ex. A-8) dated 30th January 1884 shows that the total amount due from the judgment-debtors was Rs. 3202-1-9 and it refers to "execution of decree cases." Accordingly a sale statement, Ex. A-16, was drawn up on 14th May 1884, proposing to sell 358 bighas 16 biswas "held in sub-settlement" equivalent to 6 biswas, 6 biswansis, 14 kach-wansis share of the defendants. On 26th June 1884 a notice of sale Ex. 18 was issued under Sections 136 and 137 of Act 17 of 1876 in which the amount of the share of the judgment-debtors proposed to be sold was given as 6 biswas, 6 biswansis, 14 kachwan-sis and the area of the land was given as 461 bighas, 17 biswas (358 bighas, 16 biswas cultivated and 103 bighas, 1 biswa uncultivated) with other details of the property regarding encumbrances, etc. The sale was held on 12th August 1884, and a sale certificate (Ex. A-32) issued to the taluqdar who purchased the property through an agent. In this certificate, which is dated 23rd July 1885, the amount of the share sold is the same as that given in the statement and notice of sale but the area is given as 744 bighas, 10 biswas comprising 373 bighas, 8 biswas 10 biswansis cultivated and 371 bighas, 1 biswa, 10 biswansis uncultivated land.

5. Now, the plaintiffs' case is that by this sale the shares of some only of the cosharers of thok Lachhmi Kant were sold but not of others who were no parties to the decree for arrears of rent. These cosharers were Sugriva Singh and Jagardeo Singh, sons of Balwanta Singh, Mt. Sidhana, Mt. Sukha, Baldeo Singh, Rachhpal Singh, Harpal Singh and Jagannath Singh. The plaintiffs allege that they are the representatives-in-interest of these cosharer