JUDGMENT

(D.S. Bajpai, J.)

1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal Against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.1978 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sitapur allowing Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1976 and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 26.2.1976 passed in Original Suit No. 210 of 1971 by which the plaintiffappellant's suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendantrespondents 1 to 3 from taking possession of the land in dispute was decreed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case were that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants 1 to 3 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the disputed land shown by letters ABCD in the plan attached with the plaint, situate in Mohalla Vijai Luxmi Nagar, Sitapur either by digging foundation or by making any constructions thereon in any manner whatsoever, on the allegation that the father of the plaintiff, Gur Prasad, had purchased plot No. 236 as Karta of the H.U.F. from Srimati Prem Lata and Virendra Nath Saxena by a registered saledeed on 17.12.1958. It was averred that Sri Gur Prasad retired from collectorate, Sitapur where he was serving as an official and that he had no personal assets of his own to purchase the property and the full consideration of the saledeed was paid from the joint ancestral family income as also from the contribution of the plaintiff to the extent of half the amount since the plaintiff had already steeled in legal practice. As such it was asserted that it was a joint family property on which a building was constructed but a portion of the said plot towards west was left as open land for beneficial enjoyment in the house. The plaintiff's said father, Gur Prasad, died some time in 1966 during the pendency of the suit. It was further alleged that the defendants 1 to 3 without any right and title were trying to trespass on the said vacant land and had dug foundation, apparently to construct a building and on being checked the defendant no. 1, Ramanand, told the plaintiff that he had got a saledeed executed in favour of the defendant no. 3 from the plaintiff's said father Gur Prasad. It was under these circumstances that the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff. The three original defendants in the suit were Ramanand, Jagdish Prasad and Srimati Sushila Devi respectively but subsequently on the death of Gur Prasad an application (33 Ga2) was filed by the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 10 were directed to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. The defendants 1 to 3 contested the suit and filed a joint writtenstatement alleging, inter alia, that the suit was undervalued and the court fee paid was insufficient and the suit was bad for nonjoinder of the heirs of the deceased Gur Prasad. The defendants also averred that the sale in favour of the defendant No. 3 was for a consideration of Rs. 3000 and that the valuation at the time of filing of the written statement was not less than Rs.8000, A defence was taken that Gur Prasad having served in the Collectorate for a longtime he purchased plot No. 236 from his own Savings, and he had no ancestral property to purchase the land from the savings of the said property. It was further asserted that the defendant no. 3 was in possession since the date of sale and hence the suit for permanent injunction, was not tenable and that the plaintiff could not have any easementary right without it being, attached to his own land and as such the plaintiff had no right to file the suit. An additional written statement was also filed in which it was alleged that the sale could not be declared null and void on the ground of inadequate consideration and because on court fee had been paid for cancellation, of the saledeed the plea raised in para 7 (b) wascontradictory to the original pleading, of the plaintiff since no adverse possession could be claimed by a person on his own property. On pleadings of the parties the trial court framed as many as 11 issues mentioned here