since the execution of the sale deeds, with the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their ancestors, from the date of such execution. The learned trial court held that the suit was barred by limitation and also by adverse possession. While considering issue no.6, reference was made to the discussion at the time of deciding issue no.4 and it was held that at the time of execution of the Sale Deed Nos.7168, 7759 and 7760, the suit land was already partitioned between the ancestor of the plaintiffs and it was not in joint possession of the family of the plaintiff and the proforma defendants. While considering the issue nos.7 and 8 also, a reference was made to the discussion while deciding issue no.4 and it was held that the aforesaid three sale deeds are valid and genuine. It was further held that the defendants were in possession of the suit land pursuant to the execution of the sale deeds in their favour, with the knowledge of the plaintiffs, their ancestor, and the whole world and that the defendants had perfected their right and title over the suit land through adverse possession, and therefore, the sale deeds were not liable to be cancelled. Issue no.9 was also decided by making reference to the discussion made by considering issue no.4 and it was held that the suit land was in possession of the defendants and the possession was delivered in favour of the contesting defendants from the date of execution of the sale deeds. Issue No. 3 was also decided with reference to the discussion made while deciding Issue No. 4. It was held that the plaintiffs’ suit was barred by limitation and therefore it was presumed that the plaintiffs had waived their right to challenge the sale deeds within the prescribed period under law. Accordingly, the suit was held to be barred by principles of waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence. While deciding issue nos.1 and 2 , the learned trial court referred to the findings regarding Issue Nos.3 to 9 and held that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiff had no valid cause of action. Issue no.10 was decided by referring to the decision in Issue Nos.1 to 9 and it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the cost of the suit from the contesting defendant nos.1 to 3. While deciding issue no.11, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. However,
