JUDGMENT :

1. Since common issue is involved in both the second appeals, they are heard and decided together.

2. During pendency of these appeals, respondent/plaintiff 1 Anand Kumari died and, therefore, her name was deleted from the array of cause title of the appeals.

3. The other respondents/plaintiffs and deceased plaintiff Anand Kumari brought a suit for declaration that two sale-deeds both dated 16.8.1988 executed by Aminabai in favour of appellant/defendant 1 Sunderlal Leharey are not binding upon them as Aminabai had no right to sell the property and also for declaration of title on the ground of adverse possession and confirmation of possession basing the claim over the suit property on the ground of their adverse possession.

4. According to the pleadings of the plaintiffs, one Filkash Prakash, a resident of Ganeshpur and owner of the property of Schedule A and Schedule B died 30 years back. He had 3 sons, namely, Prem Prakash, Masih Bux and Arther Bux. Arther Bux died issueless in the year 1998. Prem Prakash also died 25 years back. His wife Aminabai also died issueless in the year 1990. Masih Bux died 18 years back. Deceased/plaintiff Anand Kumari was wife of Masih Bux. Rest of the plaintiffs were children of Masih Bux and Anand Kumari. Prem Prakash was living at Raipur and was employed there. He was also issueless. Therefore, he had relinquished his right in the property of Scheduled A and Schedule B. He never visited Village Ganeshpur. After his death, his wife Aminabai also never visited Village Ganeshpur. Though Prem Prakash had relinquished his right in the aforesaid property, relation between all the brothers were cordial and, therefore, name of Prem Prakash was continuing in the revenue record. After death of Prem Prakash, appellant/defendant Sunderlal Leharey started living in the house of Prem Prakash on rent. Aminabai was an old lady and was dependent on Sunderlal Leharey and taking benefit of her old age and dependency, on 16.8.1988, Sunderlal Leharey got executed one sale deed (Ex.P5) for Rs.35,600 from her for the property of Schedule B, i.e., for the land bearing Khasra No.239 and 525 area 1.271 hectares and 1.157 hectares, respectively of Village Ganeshpur without giving her any consideration amount and on the same date he also got executed another sale-deed (Ex.P6) for Rs.3,500 for the property of Schedule A, i.e., for the land bearing Khasra No.16/3 and 153/1 area 0.206 hectare and 0.020 hectare, respectively of the same village Ganeshpur without giving her any consideration amount. It was further pleaded that as Prem Prakash, husband of Aminabai had already relinquished his right in the aforesaid property, therefore, otherwise also, Aminabai had no right to sell the property. Therefore, on the basis of above two sale-deeds, Sunderlal Leharey does not acquire any title over the aforesaid lands. It was further pleaded that otherwise also the plaintiffs had continuous possession over those lands for more than 30 years and, therefore, they got title over those lands on the basis of adverse possession.

5. In his written statement, Appellant/defendant Sunderlal Leharey denied the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint. It was pleaded by him that Prem Prakash and his wife Aminabai had never relinquished their right over the suit property. Therefore, Aminabai was the absolute owner of the suit property and she had every right to sell the said property. It was further pleaded by him that he was never a tenant of Aminabai and he got executed the subject sale deeds after giving full consideration amount to Aminabai. Pursuant to the order dated 23.3.1982 passed by the Tahsildar, Simga in Revenue Case No.2-v/27 Year 1975-76, name of Aminabai was registered separately in the revenue record and, therefore also, she had every right to sell the suit lands. The plaintiffs were aware of both the sale-deeds f