Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for appellant and Sri B.N. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This is a plaintiff's appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "Code") arising from judgment and decree dated 16.08.1978 passed by Sri R.C. Agarwal, IInd Additional District Judge, Etawah in Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1975. By impugned order, First Appellate Court has allowed defendant's appeal and set aside judgment and decree dated 26.08.1975 passed by Sri Brij Bhushan Singh Sisodiya, Civil Judge, Etawah.

3. Civil Judge, Etawah had decreed suit granting relief of cancellation of sale-deed dated 12.08.1969 executed by defendant-2 in favour of defendant-1 in respect of disputed property and an injunction, as prayed by plaintiff, was also granted but the same has been reversed by Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") and suit has been dismissed.

4. Plaintiff-Appellant, Gaya Prasad instituted Original Suit (hereinafter referred to as "OS") No. 21 of 1971 in the Court of Civil Judge, Etawah vide plaint dated 22.07.1971 impleading Nathu Singh as defendant-1 and Raja Ram as defendant-2 for cancellation of sale-deed dated 12.08.1969 registered on 17.10.1969 executed by Raja Ram, defendant-2 in favour of Nathu Singh-defendant-1 and seeking eviction of defendants from disputed property and delivery of possession to plaintiff.

5. Plaint case set up by plaintiff-appellant is that House No. 51 (Old No. 47) alongwith Sahan situated at Mohalla-Garhaiya, Town Auraiya, District-Etawah was in ownership and possession of plaintiff since the time of his ancestors. Some part of house was ruined and remaining constructed part, which remained intact, consisted of two rooms in which tenants of plaintiff were residing. In one of the rooms, defendant-2 was residing. He was in possession in the capacity of tenant. Plaintiff-appellant instituted Suit No. 27 of 1969 against defendant-2 in the Court of Munsiff, Etawah for eviction and recovery of rent, which was pending. During pendency of suit, defendant-2 executed sale-deed dated 12.08.1969 in favour of defendant-1 which is forged and fictitious since defendant-2 has no right to execute such sale-deed which is in ownership of plaintiff, therefore, sale-deed is liable to be cancelled.

6. Suit was contested by both defendants by filing their separate written statements.

7. Defendant-2 in the written statement dated 31.07.1972 denied title of plaintiff-appellant and that the defendant-2 was a tenant in a part of disputed house. In additional pleas, it was pleaded that disputed property was owned by Mahadevi, widow of Battan Babu, who allowed defendant-2 to reside in disputed property about 30-31 years back. It is defendant-2 who constructed two rooms and was residing. He also let out building at some point of time. Plaintiff also got permission (Izazatnama) from Mahadevi and Jagdish Narayan, who were Zamindars of disputed property. With permission of both, defendant-2 was in possession of disputed property. Defendant-2 executed sale-deed in favour of defendant-1. There is no rent deed or agreement between plaintiff and defendant-2 and if any such deed is existing, the same is forged and fictitious. Plaintiff filed Suit No. 159 of 1967 for rent and eviction in the Court of Munsiff, Etawah which was dismissed and, therefore, plaintiff has no right over the property in dispute. Defendant-2 also said that he was in possession of disputed property, openly, to the knowledge of plaintiff as owner. for the last more than 12 years and, therefore, has matured his right and title over disputed property and suit is barred by limitation.

8. Defendant-1 in the written statement dated 07.12.1971 also pleaded similarly and it was specifically said that plaintiff has no right over property in dispute. He also pleaded that disputed property was sold to defendant-2 by erstwhile owner on 12.08.1969 and, therefore, he had a r