Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The issue of limitation can be determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code when it can be decided on admitted facts. However, if the facts regarding limitation are disputed, the question cannot be resolved as a preliminary issue and requires examination of contested facts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

2. Statements made by a party in pleadings are considered admissions and are admissible against that party without the need for further proof. Such admissions can be used to determine the starting point of limitation (!) (!) (!) .

3. The applicability of specific limitation provisions depends on the nature of the claim. For instance, certain articles apply only when applications for execution of decrees or orders are involved, and not at the stage of initiating legal proceedings to assert a right (!) (!) .

4. The consideration of the validity of a relinquishment deed and the period of limitation with respect to that deed are distinct issues. The validity of such a deed is a separate matter from the question of limitation, which is primarily about the time within which a suit can be filed (!) .

5. The determination of limitation as a preliminary issue is permissible when the facts are admitted and the legal question is straightforward. When facts are disputed, the issue must be resolved after examining the contested evidence (!) (!) .

6. The court's findings on limitation, based on the facts in the pleadings, are binding unless shown to be perverse or illegal. The courts below correctly applied these principles, and their concurrent decisions do not warrant interference (!) (!) .

7. The stage for applying certain limitation articles, such as Article 136, is specific to particular proceedings like applications for execution of decrees, and does not generally extend to the initial filing of suits or claims for declaration of rights (!) (!) .

8. The nature of the suit—whether declaratory or otherwise—affects the applicable limitation period. In this case, the suit was of a declaratory nature, and the limitation period was correctly identified and applied by the courts below (!) (!) .

9. The courts rightly rejected arguments that the suit was barred by limitation based on the dates of knowledge and the conduct of the parties, emphasizing that the limitation period begins when the right is known or the infringement occurs, and not merely upon suspicion or later discovery (!) .

10. Overall, there was no perversity or illegality in the judgments of the courts below, and their decisions are well-founded within the legal framework. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case.