- (1.) Appeal No. 1038 of 1996 has been presented before the Court by Sri Amar Chandra (since deceased and substituted by his legal representatives), defendant no. 1 in original suit, while Appeal no. 1130 of 1996 has been filed by Smt. Vidyawati, defendant no. 2 in original suit. The appellants are aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 16.09.1996 passed by Smt. Sandhya Bhatt, XIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 966 of 1988, whereby it has allowed appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.07.1988 passed by IVth Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur in Original Suit No. 344 of 1978, as a result whereof the suit has been decreed.
(2.) The Appeal No. 1038 of 1996 was admitted on 29.11.1996, I did not find from the order that this Court formulated any substantial question of law, though in the memo of appeal defendant-appellant had framed 10 substantial questions of law. However, learned counsel for the appellant pressed only two substantial questions of law, as under: (A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the suit for cancellation of sale deed was barred by time when it was filed after the limitation prescribed from the date of knowledge? (B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Lower Appellate Court was correct in allowing the appeal even though there was enormous evidence that the knowledge in respect of sale deed received by appellant more than three years of limitation prescribed for cancellation of sale deed?
(3.) Second Appeal No. 1130 of 1996 was admitted on 18.12.1996 on the substantial questions of law formulated as 'A' and 'B' in the memo of appeal, which read as under: (A) Whether the suit was barred on account of limitation and can the Lower Appellate Court decree the suit reversing the finding of Trial Court? (B) Whether the suit is barred on account of estopple and acquiescence?;