S.B. Sinha, J :-

This second appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 12-6-1984 passed by Sri Ranjit Prasad Sinha, 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Giridih in Titlie Appeal No.3 of 1982/6 of 1983 whereby and whereunder the said learned court reversed the judgment and decree dated 22-9-1981 passed by Sri G,W. BAA, learned Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No. 14 of 1975.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The plaintiff by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 16-3-1972 (Ext.1) purchased the suit lands which is in several posts appertaining to Khata No. 364 in village Hossir. P. S. Gomia. Dist. Giridih. Admittedly the consideration amount fixed in respect of the aforementioned sale deed was Rs. 1500/-.

3. From a perusal of the said registered deed of sale dated 16-3-1972 (Ext.1) it transpires that the plaintiff paid a slim of Rs. 700/- to defendant No.1 (Vendor) and the balance amout of Rs. 800/- was to be paid on a later date. According to the plaintiff, on or about 17-3-1972 she paid the balance sum of Rs. 800/- therefore the defendant No.1 granted Kabja wasuli receipt which was marked before the learned court below as Ext. 2. The further case of the plaintiff is that some times in May, 1975 she came to learn from the notices issues by the Circle Officer that defendant No. 2 had applied before the said authority for mutation of his name in respect of the aforementioned land, Upon enquiry, she came to learn that the consideration amount was not paid by the plaintiff to defendant No.1, executed a registered deed of cancellation on 20th March, 1972 which was• marked before the learned trial court as Ext. B. It further transpires that on 14-3-1973 defendant No.1 executed a registered deed of sale in respect of l.89½ acres of land out of the suit property in favour of defendant No.2. The said registered deed of sale dated 17-3-1973 was marked as Ext. A/2 before the learned trial court. On 20th March, 1972 defendant No.1 had executed another sale deed in favour of the defendant No.3 who incidently happens to be the son of the plaintiff in respect of l.56½ acres of land out of the suit properties. Defendant No.3, however, denied to have purchased the said land from the defendant No.1.

4. The case of defendant No.1 was that in view of the fact that the plaintiff did not pay the entire consideration amount for execution of the aforementioned deed of sale dated 16-3-1972 he had cancelled the said document by executing the said purported deed of cancellation dated 20th March, 1972. The further case of defendant No.1 was that the plaintiff did not come in possession of the suit properties pursuant to the said registered deed of sale dated 16-3-1972 or otherwise, and upon execution of the sale deed dated 20th March, 1972 (in favour of defendant No.3) and the sale deed dated 14-3-1973 (in favour of defendant No.2), the respective purchasers came in possession of their purchased property. On the basis of the aforementioned pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues :-

(i) Is the suit maintainable?

(ii) Is there any cause of action for the suit ?

(iii) Is the suit barred by adverse possession and limitation?

(iv) Is the suit bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties?

(v) Is the suit hit under the provisions of specific Relief Act?

(vi) Is the suit under-valued ?

(vii) Has the plaintiff title over the suit lands, and is also entitled for a decree for confirmation of possession ?

(viii) To what other relief or relief is the plaintiff entitled ?"

5. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiff paid the entire amount as consideration of the said deed and as stipulated in the deed of sale dated 16-3-1972 and she came in possession thereon. The learned trial Court also came to the conclusion that the purported deed of cancellation dated 20th March, 1972 (Ext. B) was illegrl and further held that the title and interest of the plaintiff was not affected thereby. The learned lower appellat