SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court dated 6.2.1990 by which the defendant's first appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for cancellation of sale deeds dated 9.3.1981 and 6.9.1983 executed by Basarat, father of the plaintiff and the defendant in favour of the defendant Khas Mohammad. The Trial Court after framing seven issues found, while deciding issue no. 1, that the sale deeds were a result of fraud and while deciding issue no. 2, it found that the suit was 10 within limitation and decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court however, upon dealing with all the pleadings and evidence on record concluded that the suit was barred by limitation, the plaintiff had not been able to prove that there was any fraud or misrepresentation because of which the sale deed came into existence and further found that the defendant was in possession of the suit property.
(2.) The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : A. Whether according to plaint allegation Civil Court has got jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed in question which were voidable documents? B. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for cancellation of alleged sale deed is not barred by time? H. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to record its finding on any other issue when it has arrived at the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction?
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions: (I) The sale deed was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. (II) No consideration had passed to the deceased father. (III) Though the sale deed gives out the necessity for the selling of the land but the necessity of wanting more money for going to Haj was not there as the plaintiff's father had already been on Haj. (IV) That the sale deed was executed not by his father but by an imposter. (V) The defendant had not been able to prove that the father of the plaintiff had actually executed a sale deed as the defendant had not himself come into the witness box. ;