Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.10.1989, passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Jhansi in Civil Appeal No. 106 of 1986 and the dismissing the Appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 16.5.1986 passed by Civil Judge, Jhansi in Original Suit No. 35 of 1985 (Prem Narain v. Mahavir Jain Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Ranipur, Jhansi).

2. The plaintiff-appellant instituted an Original Suit No. 35 of 1985 before the learned Trial Court, praying for cancellation the sale-deed dated 25.11.1974. Plaintiff’s case is that he and defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 belong to the same family, Shajra whereof is attached with the plaint; that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 lived jointly till 1960; that the moveable and immoveable properties were divided between the parties in 1960 and they are accordingly in possession; that the plaintiff was entitled to half share and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were entitled to half share; that there was a plot in Mohalla Jhandapura Mauranipur area 20400 sq.ft. which was also partitioned in 1960; that the plaintiff got half of the same and the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 also got half area of the same; that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 sold an area of 69 feet x 42 feet in favour of Dayaram Kachi in 1965; that an area of 7302 sq. ft. remained but defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have sold 17200 sq. ft. in favour of defendant No. 1 on 25.11.1974 including the land belonging to the plaintiff; that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have no right to sell out the land of the plaintiff without his consent and even without partition the defendant could have not sold more than half of their share in the land.

3. The defendant Nos. 2 to 4 did not filed any written statement in the suit, despite service of notice.

One Sunder Lal submitted written statement on behalf of defendant No. 1, stating that the in the partition in 1960, the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 got 20400 sq.ft. of land; that the suit is barred by limitation and Section-34 of the Specific Relief Act and the defendant No. 1 is entitled to protection of Section-41 of the Transfer of Property Act as he is bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

4. The learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues,

(1). Whether the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 did not had right to execute the sale-deed of the disputed property?

(2). Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed property and has possession over the same?

(3). Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time?

(4). Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section-34 of Specific Relief Act?

(5). Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

(6). Whether the defendants are bona fide purchaser for value without notice?

(7). To what relief is the plaintiff entitled to?

(8). Whether the Court Fees paid in the suit is insufficient?

5. The trial Court first of all decided the issue No. 8 in negative holding that the Court fees is paid sufficient.

Regarding issue No. 1, the trial Court held that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had right to execute the disputed sale-deed but the question remains whether they executed the sale-deed in excess of their share or not.

6. Issue No. 2, regarding ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute, the trial Court recorded the finding that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 did not execute the sale-deed in excess of their share in favour of defendant No. 1.

Issue No. 4 was decided against the plaintiff holding that his suit is barred by Section-34 of the Specific Relief Act since he has not prayed for any consequential relief of possession. It is not clear who is in possession over the land in dispute.

Issue No.