S.N.HUSSAIN, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs-respondents 1st Set-appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below.

2. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 118 of 1986 (277/1988) which was filed by the plaintiffs for the following reliefs:

(a) Declaration that the plaintiffs had good title to the suit land by way of sate deed executed by defendant 1st party in favour of the plaintiffs and that the deed of cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed executed by defendant 1st party was void.

(b) Declaration that the deed of gift executed by defendant 1st party in favour of defendant 2nd party on 15.5.1986 was fraudulent, sham and inoperative and did not confer any title or possession upon defendant 2nd party with respect to the suit land as the plaintiffs are in possession of the same.

(c) The deed of gift be cancelled and defendants 2nd party be injuncted from coming upon the suit land.

(d) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs.

(e) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs are entitled.

3. The claim of the plaintiffs was that after receipt of the full consideration amount, defendant no.1 executed sale deed dated 9.2.1978 (Ext.-1) in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to suit premises and got it registered and although possession was given to the plaintiffs on the date of sale, but the chirkut of the sale deed was not given to the plaintiffs by defendant no.1 as he wanted to remove the trees standing on the said land. From the said consideration amount, defendant no.1 purchased another land by registered deed dated 9.2.1978 (Ext.-1/B) in the name of his son Kapildeo Yadav. It was also claimed by the plaintiffs that they had no knowledge that defendant no.1 had executed a deed dated 16.11.1978 (Ext.A) cancelling the plaintiffs sale deed dated 9.2.1978 (Ext.-1) and hence when certified copy of the deed of cancellation (Ext.1/C) was handed over by the defendants to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs being illiterate person could not read it and relying upon the words of defendant no.1 thought that it was Ext.-1. Hence, it is averred that the said deed of cancellation (Ext.-A) was without any notice or information to the plaintiff and it was never given effect to as the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit premises continued. The plaintiffs also claimed that they came to know the said fact only after defendant no.1 executed a deed of gift dated 15.5.1986 (Ext.-B) in favour of defendant no.2 with respect to the suit land and hence the plaintiffs immediately filed the aforesaid title suit on 24.6.1986.

4. The defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement admitting execution of sale deed dated 9.2.1978 (Ext.- 1) in favour of the plaintiffs, but claiming that full amount was not paid and balance was to be paid later, but when the same was not paid the said sale deed was cancelled by the deed of cancellation dated 16.11.1978 (Ext.A). It was also claimed that the plaintiffs had full knowledge of Ext.-A, but did not take any step for several years. It was also averred that in the year 1986, defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 intended to exchange their lands and hence defendant no.1 executed a deed of gift (Ext.-B) of the suit land in favour of defendant no.2, whereas defendant no.2 executed a deed of sale of his land in favour of defendant no.1, both dated 15.5.1986 (Exts.-B and 1/B). Hence, it was stated that the plaintiffs had no cause of action for the suit as the deed of cancellation was legal, valid and proper and was legally given effect to.

5. After considering the respective claims of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues for deciding the title suit:

(i) Is the suit framed and filed maintainable?

(ii) Have the plaintiffs any cause of action?

(iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation?

(iv) Have the plaintiffs got any right, title on the basis of sale deed dated 3.2.1978?

(v) To what relief or relie