Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This is plaintiff’s second appeal under Section 100,C.P.C.

2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 14.10.1983 and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession. Plaintiff’s case is that original owner of plot No. 65 area 35 dismal and plot No. 56 area .04 dismal, was Shanker who was his grandfather. The suit property has been transferred illegally by defendant No. 4 (defendant second set) in favour of defendant No. 1 to 3 (defendant first set. It is necessary to set out genealogy of the parties:

SHANKAR (Dead)
Seeta (Dead)			Raju (Dead) (Issueless)
Ram Shakal (dead) (Issueless)	Ram Chandra (Dead) (Issueless)	Jeeta	Jang Bahadur	Dasarath (Dead) (Issueless)

3. It is stated in the plaint that Shanker, grandfather of the appellant had two sons namely Seeta (dead) and Raju (dead), of whom Raju died issueless. Seeta has five sons namely Ram Sakal, Ram Chandra, Jeeta, Jang Bahadur and Dasarath. Ram Sakal, Ram Chandra and Dasarath died issueless. Consequently, the appellant alongwith fourth respondent Jeeta and Shanker became co tenure holder of the aforesaid land and they were in possession of the land in dispute. It is stated that defendant-respondent No. 4 herein by showing himself as son of Ram Chandra who died issueless, has sold 1/4th his share to respondent No. 1 and 2 by registered sale-deed dated 14.10.1983 in a clandestine manner. The appellant had no knowledge about the sale-deed. After the aforesaid sale-deed, Shanker also died. Thus, the appellant and respondent No. 4 became co tenure holder of the aforesaid land.

4. The appellant came to know about the sale-deed dated 14.10.1983 in the month of October, 1988 when defendant respondent No. 1 and 2 started causing interference in peaceful possession of the plaintiff appellant. The appellant made enquiry and then came to know that defendant-respondent Phool Badan has sold 1/4th share of the land in dispute in favour of defendant respondent No. 1 and 2 by registered sale-deed dated 14.10.1983 and also found that mutation proceedings was carried on for mutating name of defendant respondent No. 1 and 2 in place of Phool Badan. Thereafter on the advice of counsel, the appellant filed an objection in mutation proceedings on 30.11.1988. The said mutation proceeding was decided in favour of defendant respondent No. 1 and 2 on 3.7.1988. At that stage, his counsel advised him to file a civil suit, hence he has instituted the present suit for the relief mentioned above.

5. The defendants contested the suit. Defendant No. 3 Phool Badan took a stand that defendant No. 3 Ram Sakal was his uncle. He denied the claim of the plaintiff that Ram Sakal died issueless. After his death, he had ¼th share and he has sold his share for a consideration of Rs. 12360/- vide sale-deed dated 14.10.1983 in favour of defendant No. 1 and 2 and also handed over possession to them. It was also stated by him that Ram Chandra was married with Darpee Devi and defendant claimed to be their son. He also denied the fact that Darpee Devi had died. It was also stated that plaintiff had knowledge about the sale-deed dated 14.10.1983 from very inception but he has filed suit after 15 years which is beyond limitation.

6. The trial Court framed seven issues in the suit. Issue No. 2 was whether the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court decided issue No. 2 regarding limitation and issue No. 3 about maintainability of the suit, as preliminary issue. Both the issues were decided against the plaintiff-appellant and consequently the suit was dismissed by the trial Court.

7. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-appellant preferred regular first appeal bein