K.N. Saikia, J. - (1.)THESE three second appeals and a cross -objection are from the common judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Manipur dismissing the appeals affirming those of the Munsiff decreeing the Plaintiff's suit, and are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)THE Respondent No. 1, as Plaintiff. Instituted Original Suit No. 2/77 on the footing, inter alia, that she purchased the suit land with her own money in the name of her eldest son Rajakumar Surjamani Singh, Defendant No. 4, then a minor aged about six years, to save her husband, who was a Government servant from criticism, and got the name of Defendant No. 4 mutated and had been possessing the suit land enjoying the usufruct thereof as her absolute property; that the land was under two plots, namely, old patta No. 87/423 corresponding to new patta No. 87/869 I.W., and old patta No. 87/283 corresponding to new patta No. 87/868 I.W.T. measuring 12.48 acres which constituted the suit land; that the Defendant No. 4 by three different sale deeds transferred portions of the suit land to Defendants 1, 2 and 3, namely, by sale deed dated 15.9.76 he transferred 2.50 acres under new patta No. 87/868' I.W. to Defendant No. 1 for Rs. 5100/ -, by sale deed dated 15.9.76 he transferred another 2.50 acres to Defendant No. 2 for Rs. 3,100/ -, and by another sale deed dated 15.9.76 he transferred 2.50 acres to Defendant No. 3 for Rs. 5,500/ -; that the Defendant No. 4 was also trying to sell the remaining 4.98 acres of the suit land; that at the time of the sales the Defendant No. 4 had been (suffering from lunacy/mental disorder; and that the Respondent No. 4 having been a benamidar be had no right to transfer those lands and that too when he was mentally deranged. The Plaintiff prayed a decree declaring the aforesaid sale deeds to be sham and the transfers to be null and void against the Plaintiff, and for injunction restraining the Defendant 1, 2 and 3 from interfering with her peaceful possession of the suit land for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 4 from transferring the remaining portion of the suit land measuring 4.98 acres.
The Defendants 1, 2 and 3 jointly resisted the suit denying all the averments of the Plaintiff and further stating, inter alia, that the Defendants acquired perfect right and title by virtue of the respective sale deeds; they took delivery of possession of their respective lands, after purchase and had been in peaceful possession of their respective lands as of right; that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties; and that H the Plaintiff having not prayed for declaration of her title over the suit land with prayer for consequential relief, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3.)THE trial Court settled eight issues including whether the Plaintiff was the owner of the suit land; whether the Defendant No. 4 was the ostensible owner or absolute owner of the suit land; and whether the Defendant No. 4 was lunatic at the time of execution of the sale deeds dated 15.9.76 in favour of the Defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 in respect of the suit land.
;