SHASHI KANT, J.

1. Heard Sri S.N. Yadav Advocate holding brief of Sri Jai Singh, one of the counsel for the appellants and Sri Ramveer Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Aforesaid second appeals have been filed by the plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter referred to as "appellants") against the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1980 passed by Sri Kripa Shanker, III Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur in Civil Appeal No. 462 of 1977, whereby appeal filed by appellants has been dismissed, while Civil Appeal No. 433/1977 filed by defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as "respondent") Sheo Shanker Singh and others has been allowed and judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has been set-aside.

3. Feeling themselves aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellants have been preferred aforesaid second appeals with the prayer to allow appeals, set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and to decree the appellants' suit in toto with costs throughout alongwith other reliefs which may be deemed fit and proper.

4. Since both the aforesaid Second Appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common impugned judgment and decree and parties in both the appeals are also same. In view of the above, on the request of learned counsel for the parties, both the above appeals have been heard together and being decided by this common judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that :

5.1. The Courts below came to the conclusion that sale deed executed in favour of respondent Shiv Shankar Singh was inoperative and void and sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff appellant is valid. In these circumstances, Courts below committed an error of law by not decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-appellants for declaration of title and possession.

5.2. Since the appellants' title over the property in suit was fully established and accepted by the Trial Court, in these circumstances, refusal to grant relief of ejectment and possession for which the limitation was 12 years under Article 65 of Limitation Act by First Appellate Court is wrong and illegal.

5.3. The Courts below have committed an error of law in refusing to decree the suit as barred by limitation inspite of the fact that the sale deed in favour of the respondent was held to be inoperative.

5.4. Article 58 of Limitation Act is not applicable in the present case and the Courts below have committed illegality in applying the said provisions and by holding the suit to be barred by time.

5.5. The view of the Courts below that the plaintiff-appellants is not entitled for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, is erroneous and contrary to law.

5.6. Since the sale deed in favour of respondent is void abinitio, still the view of the Courts below that the relief for cancellation was not sought, is wholly erroneous and contrary to law.

5.7. The First Appellate Court had misinterpreted and misconstrued the ground no. 7 of the appeal and also committed an illegality in construing the same as an admission of the plaintiff-appellants.

5.8. The view of the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff had admitted that Ram Swaroop was in possession and as such the relief for possession of the house was wrongly granted by the Trial Court is wholly erroneous and based on misreading and misconception of law.

5.9. The view of lower Appellate Court that since the relief of declaration could not be granted, hence the relief for possession and ejectment also could not be granted, is wholly erroneous and contrary to law.

5.10. The Courts below misread the evidence adduced by the plaintiff-appellants and they failed to judiciously appreciate the evidence available on record.

5.11. In view of the above, both the appeals deserve to be allowed and impugned judgment and decree is liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respon