Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Satya Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.M.Nazar Bokhari, learned counsel for respondent and perused the record.
(2.) This is defendant's appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"), arising from judgment and decree dated 07.04.1977, passed by Sri R.N.Sinha, III Additional District Judge, Fatehpur in Civil Appeal No.102 of 1976 (Ramanand Vs. Krishna Nand), whereby appeal has been allowed and judgment and decree dated 29.07.1976 and 08.08.1976 respectively, passed by Sri Suraj Singh Raudra, IV Additional Munsif, Fatehpur in Original Suit No.294 of 1972 has been reversed and plaintiff's suit has been decreed in the manner stated in the operative part of the judgment, which I shall discuss in detail later.
(3.) Though, at the time of admission of appeal on 26.7.1977, I find that this Court did not refer to any substantial question of law arising in this appeal and in fact, even in memo of appeal, no substantial question of law has been formulated but before argument commenced, learned counsel for parties jointly agreed and stated that following two substantial questions of law have arisen in this matter and, therefore, they have addressed the Court on these questions and I am proceeding to decide the same : i. Whether Court below was justified in holding that suit was not barred by limitation? ii. Whether finding of Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") holding that there was encroachment upon Rasta and land of Qadeemi Rasta was included in Chabutara is based on evidence on record?;