Giridhar Gopal, J. - (1.) This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants, Itarbasi Devi and others, against the judgment and decree pronounced by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, dated 18-2-1980 upholding the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 2-6-1978 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellants.
(2.) On the death of Itarbasi, plaintiff-appellant, substitution was moved on 10-5-1985. That day order-sheet shows that Sri S.B. Verma, counsel for the plaintiff-appellants and Sri D.P. Agarwal, counsel for the defendant-respondents were present. This court had ordered on 9-8-1985 "Heard. Substitution is within time. Allowed." After that the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents moved an application on 16-2-1989 that Smt. Itarbasi had died on 11-2-1984 and the date given by the plaintiff-appellant as 11-3-1985 was wrong. On 9-8-1985 when the order allowing the substitution was passed, it was further clarified that the parties were heard, and the substitution was found within time. The information given by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent subsequently, now cannot be utilised for recalling that order. At best if the death had taken place earlier ; under the present circumstances, the delay should be taken to have been condoned and the substitution should stand allowed. Let the case be heard on merit.
(3.) On merit, in this second appeal the main point argued before me is that there were two sale deeds executed by the recorded tenure-holder, Sheorati. One was executed on 31-1-1909 in favour of Satya Narain Singh and others which was registered on 27-11-1969 and they later-on executed sale deed in favour of Itarbasi Devi and others, plaintiff-appellants. The other sale deed was get executed from Sheorati in favour of defendant-respondents on 5-11-1969 and it was registered on the same day. The main issue thus is that which sale deed will take priority for deciding the title.;