Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh, Advocate assisted by Sri V.K.S.Chandel, Advocate for the appellant and Sri Arvind Kumar Singh for the respondents.

2. This is plaintiff’s second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”).

3. Smt. Maharaji Kunwar, claimed herself to be the daughter of Smt. Kamta Singh and Smt. Ramdei, wife of Kamta Singh, instituted original suit No. 227 of 1969 for cancellation of sale-deed dated 12.10.1966 executed by Smt. Ramdei in favour of Ram Saran Singh, son of Sant Bux Singh, defendant No. 1. Kamta Singh and Sarjoo Singh were real brothers and Smt. Ramdei and Dulari Devi are the names of their wives, respectively. The defendants 1 and 2, Shiv Shankar and Uma Shankar Singh, are the two sons of late Sarjoo Singh while defendant-respondent No. 3 Smt. Dulari Devi is the widow of late Sarjoo Singh.

4. The plaint case, set up by appellant, is, that Kamta Singh died in April, 1966 leaving his widow Smt. Ramdei, and appellant, sole daughter, as heirs of property of deceased. Smt. Ramdei also died in October, 1966 whereafter appellant remained as the only successor to the property of late Kamta Singh. The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 in collusion, got prepared a sale-deed dated 12th October, 1966, in respect to bhumidhari land of late Kamta Singh, transferred in favour of defendant No. 4 and vide registered deed dated 27.10.1966. The aforesaid instrument is forged and fictitious for the reason that neither Smt. Ramdei executed the said document, nor she appeared before Sub-Registrar, nor put in her signature/thumb impression on the document, nor any consideration passed on to her, nor document could have been executed by her since she was not alive on 12th October, 1966. One more reason assigned therein is that defendant No. 4 had no reason to purchase land of his maternal grand father or mother, inasmuch as, defendant No. 4 is said to be the son of appellant Smt. Maharaji Kunwar.

5. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement contesting suit. They admitted that Sri Kamta Singh and Sarjoo Singh were real brothers and Smt. Ramdei and Smt. Dulari Devi, their wives, respectively. They, however, disputed plaintiff-appellant as the daughter of Kamta Singh and Smt. Ramdei and also the factum that Smt. Ramdei died in October, 1966 i.e. before execution of sale-deed in question. It is said that Smt. Ramdei, widow of Kamta Singh is still alive, yet she had not been impleaded a party in the suit. They further said that Dulari Devi, defendant No. 3, in fact, is not alive and a dead person has been impleaded as defendant No. 3.

6. In all, the Trial Court formulated five issues as under:

“1. Whether the impugned sale-deed dated 12.10.1966 is liable to be cancelled for the reasons alleged in para Nos. 5 and 6 of plaint?

2. Whether the plaintiff is the daughter of Ram Dei? If not, its effect?

3. Whether Smt. Ram Dei is alive or died? If she is died, when did she die?

4. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?

5. to what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?”

7. It appears that before Naib Tehsildar, Azamgarh appellant Smt. Maharaji Kunwar made an application for mutation of her name and this was registered as case No. 812/9 of 1966 (Smt. Maharaji Kunwar v. Ramdei). He recorded statement of Mangal Singh, Lekhpal that Smt. Ramdei, widow of Kamta Singh had died three months back and Smt. Maharaji Kunwar resident of Jiyapur is her daugher and thereafter an order was passed on 29.12.1966 permitting mutation by entering name of Smt. Maharaji Kunwar in place of Ramdei. After recording of statement of Lekhpal on 13.12.1966 order passed by Naib Tehsildar on 29.12.1966, an application was filed before Tehsildar, who passed an order on 14.10.1969 cancelling order dated 29.12.1966 and directed Naib-Tehsildar to proceed afresh. This order appeared to have been challenged before Collector, Azamgarh, who rejected appeal vide order dated 11.5.1970 where