J B PARDIWALA, J.

1. This second appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short "the CPC") is at the instance of the original defendant No.1 and is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th December, 2015 passed by the 4th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa arising from the judgment and decree dated 5th July, 2000 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (JD), Deesa in the Regular Civil Suit No.123 of 1997.

2. For the sake of convenience, the respondent No.1 shall hereinafter be referred to as the original plaintiff, the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as the original defendant No.1 and the respondents Nos.2 and 3 shall hereinafter be referred to as the original defendants Nos.2 and 3.

3. The plaintiff instituted the Regular Civil Suit No.123 of 1997 in the court of the Civil Judge (JD), Deesa for cancellation of the registered sale deed, declaration and permanent injunction with respect to the agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No.49, admeasuring 6 acres and 15 gunthas, situated at the village Mahadeviya, District: Deesa. According to the plaintiff, her husband was addicted to liquor, and as the family was in need of finance, the husband decided to sell 1 acre of the suit land, out of total 6 acres and 15 gunthas, to the appellant herein, i.e., the original defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 fraudulently got the sale deed registered of the entire suit property, i.e., 6 acres and 15 gunthas. The case of the plaintiff is one of fraud alleged to have been played upon her family by the defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, she continues to be in possession of the suit land excluding one Acre of the land which came to be sold by her husband in favour of the defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, no sooner she came to learn about the alleged fraud, and as the defendant No.1 tried to disturb her settled possession in the suit land, then she instituted the regular civil suit, referred to above.

4. The case of the defendant No.1 herein is that he had purchased the entire suit land, i.e, 6 acres and 15 gunthas by a registered sale deed duly executed by the husband of the plaintiff way back on 17th June, 1975. According to the defendant No.1, he is in possession of the entire suit land and is cultivating past couple of years. According to the defendant No.1, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property.

5. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues;

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that her husband had given in writing 1 acre land located on the North from survey no. 49 paiki for construction of well?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant no. 1 along with defendant no. 2 and 3 got the sale deed of survey no. 49 admeasuring 6 acre 15 guntha land executed on 17/6/75 for Rs. 4000/- from her husband falsely?

3. Whether the defendant proves that the husband of plaintiff had sold him 6 acre 15 guntha land of survey no. 49 by registered sale deed dated 17/6/75 and he has the possession of the land since then?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declaration as prayed?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief sought?

6. What order and decree?"

6. The issues framed by the Trial Court came to be answered as under;

"(1) In the negative

(2) In the negative

(3) Partly in the affirmative

(4) In the negative

(5) Partly in the affirmative

(6) As per the final order.'

7. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, partly allowed the suit. The Trial Court declined to grant the relief of cancellation of the sale deed. However, the trial court believed the plaintiff to be in settled possession of the suit land and, accordingly, granted the relief of permanent injunction. The Trial Court, while answering the issues Nos.4 and 5, has held as under;

"Issue no. 4

(17) As the plaintiff has failed to prove her suit, she is not entitled