1. This is defendants second appeal having lost from two Courts below.

2. No exhaustive statements of facts are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this second appeal, looking to the nature of the substantial question of law, which has been framed by this Court.

3. A suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.7 Jeetmal in favour of defendants No.1 to 6 is not binding upon the plaintiffs and the same is null and void; further they are having joint possession on the suit property along with defendant No. 7. A decree of injunction has also been sought that the defendants shall not interfere in the possession of plaintiffs.

4. The plaint averments were refuted by defendants No.1 to 6 by filing written-statement and counter-claim h~ also been filed by them. According to the defendants vide registered sale deeds dated 4.6.1984, 12.6.1984 and 12.12.1985, the defendants No.7 after partition, sold the suit property which fell in his share to defendants 1 to 6. Since the date of sale in favour of defendants 1 to 6, they are possessing the disputed property.

5. Learned trial Court framed the necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit.

6. The first appeal which was filed by the defendants 1 to 6 has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

7. In this manner, this second appeal has been preferred by the defendants 1 to 6.

8. This Court on 27.7.1998 admitted this second appeal on the following substantial question of law :

"Whether the suit was not maintainable due to failure of the plaintiffs to pray the consequential relief of the possession?"

9. The contention of Shri Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants is that the suit has been filed for cancellation of sale deeds said to have been executed by defendant No.7 Jeetmal in favour of defendants 1 to 6; further it be declared that plaintiffs are possessing the suit property along with defendant No.7 and for injunction that the defendants should not interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs. According to learned senior counsel no where a decree of possession has been sought by the plaintiffs in the plaint although they are not in possession of the suit property. To bolster his submission, learned counsel for the appellants has invited my attention to the testimony of plaintiff Ayodhya Bai (PW-l) and submitted that she herself has admitted that the defendants are possessing the suit property since the date of sale and if that would be the position, the suit of plain tiff is hit by proviso to section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (herein after the Act). In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Saran and another v. Smt. Ganga Devi AIR 1972 SC 2685.

10. Despite the plantiffs, who are respondents in this appeal have been served, no one has put appearance on their behalf. I have gone through the record of learned two Courts below and considered the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.

Regarding substantial question framed.

11. On bare perusal of the reliefs which are claimed by the plaintiffs in their plaint, this Court finds that they filed a suit seeking three reliefs they are :

(i) it be declared that the suit property is being possessed by the plaintiffs with defendants No.7 and sale deed executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendants 1 to 6 are not binding upon them and those sale deeds are null and void;

(ii) on the basis of alleged sale deed the defendants should not interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs and they should not take possession; and

(iii) cost be awarded to them and further relief which this Court think it proper be also granted.

The purpose of quoting the reliefs which the plaintiffs have sought is that no where the plaintiffs are claiming possession of the suit property on the contrary their contention in the r