Per Court:

1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Deshmukh, strenuously contended that Lower Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the decree of the trial court and partly decreeing the suit to the extent of declaration in the absence of any prayer. According to him, the suit was clearly barred by limitation in relation to the sale deeds of the year 1973 and 1983 and the mutations in favour of the vendor of the appellants were carried in the year 1970 which were never challenged. He fairly stated that this issue about limitation was not framed by the Trial Court nor was argued before the Courts below. However, the same can be urged before this court since it is a pure question of law. He relied on the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Nagorao Narayan Diwane deceased through Lrs. Smt. Laxmibai wd/o Nagorao Diwane and others Vs. Narayan Awadutrao Dighe since deceased Through Lrs. Smt. Sulochana Narayan Dighe and ors. Reported in 2000 (2) Mh.L.J. 273. He then argued that the Lower Appellate Court has given no importance to the revenue record or mutation entries which were never challenged and thus according to him, the