ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal involves a dispute between the parties who are related to each other, having a common ancestor. The dispute involves a registered Will dated 5th August, 1972, executed in favour of the appellants by one Brijlal (deceased), who had four sons. Except for his youngest son, Onkar Prasad, all the other sons were allegedly separated from him and were staying separately. Brijlal was staying with Onkar Prasad and excluding the descendants of his other children executed the said Will dated 5th August, 1972, in favour of his grand-children through Onkar Prasad. Brijlal died on 5th November, 1976, and on the basis of the Will executed by him, the appellants moved an application for mutation of the bequeathed properties in their names. The respondent No.1, who is one of the grand-sons of the testator through another son, Shanti Swarup, also filed an application for mutation, which was rejected. An appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed. On 29th April, 1977, the Tehsildar passed an order for mutation of the properties in the name of the appellants on the basis of the aforesaid Will dated 5th August, 1972.

3. On 2nd January, 1978, the respondent NO.1 herein filed a suit for declaration that the registered Will dated 5th August, 1972, had been procured by practising fraud. The suit was duly contested by the appellants herein by filing written statement. .On the basis of the pleadings, in order to arrive at a decision in the suit, the following issues were framed: -

(i) Whether the Will dated 5th August, •1972 executed by Brijlal, in favour of defendants 2 to 6 is forged and not binding upon the plaintiff?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession on the disputed property of his share?

(iii) Whether the suit was undervalued and the court fee paid is insufficient?

(iv) Whether Brijlal had got a right to execute the Will of his property?

(v) Whether Brijlal was the exclusive owner of the disputed property?

(vi) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

4. All the aforesaid issues were decided against the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. While deciding issue No. 6, The Trial Court also held that the suit was barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, because the plaintiff had failed to prove that the Will was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff within three years of the filing of the suit.

5. Aggrieved by the decision in the suit, the plaintiff-respondent NO.1 herein, preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge, Aligarh, which was allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court was reversed without deciding the question of limitation which had been decided against the plaintiff-respondent NO.1 and in favour of the defendants-appellants herein.

6. The defendants-appellants herein filed a second appeal before the Allahabad High Court on 3rd October, 1983, and the same was also dismissed on 6th February, 2006, affirming the judgment and order of the Appellate Court.

7. In this appeal, the mail") point which was urged on behalf of the appellant is that although all the issues in the suit were decided against the plaintiff-respondent NO.1 by the Trial Court, in addition, the Trial Court had also held that the suit was barred by limitation. It was submitted that while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court had neither gone into the question of limitation nor reversed the finding that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. While affirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court, even the High Court appears to have lost sight of the said finding.

8. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. S.B.Sanyal, learned senior advocate, submitted that both the First Appellate Court and the High Court erred in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court without deciding the question relating to limitation and that the judgment both of the High Court as-well as of the First Appellate Court were liable