JUDGMENT

Sanjay K Agrawal, J. - This second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the CPC by the appellants herein / defendants No.1 to 3 was admitted for hearing by formulating the following three substantial questions of law: -

"(1) Whether the first appellate Court is justified in deciding the appeal without complying with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC including not formulating the points for determination which is mandatory requirement for effective disposal of first appeal

(2) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court without reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court on issue No.1 & 5

(3) Whether transfer of suit land vide registered sale deed dated 26-11-1975 in favour of late Ramjanam i.e. father of defendants is void and ineffective in view of the provisions contained in Section 165(7)(b) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code "

[For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court.]

Plaintiff's suit: -

2. The suit land bearing Khasra No.189/2, area 1.36 acre and Khasra No.152/6, area 1.00 acre, total area 2.36 acres of land was granted on lease to Shri Abdul Hamid (father of the plaintiffs) by patta (Ex.P4) by the revenue officer for a period of five years which he is said to have transferred in favour of Ramjanam Ram father of the defendants vide sale deed dated 26-11-1975 (Ex.P-6) and said to have delivered peaceful possession to the father of the defendants (Ramjanam Ram). Thereafter, only on 25-7-2003, Abdul Hamid instituted a suit that the sale deed dated 26-11-1975 be declared as ineffective, void, as he never executed any such sale deed Ex.P-6 in favour of Ramjanam Ram and it is absolute fabricated document and he (original plaintiff) be granted decree for possession in his favour; during the pendency of suit, he died and his legal representatives were brought on record.

Defendants' case: -

3. Defendants No.1 to 3 / legal representatives of Ramjanam Ram filed their joint written statement stating inter alia that their father purchased the suit land from the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 26-11- 1975 and since then they are in possession after getting their names recorded in the revenue record and in cultivating possession of the suit land, as such, the plaintiff has no right and title over the suit land. By way of additional statement, an additional ground that the suit is barred by limitation as it was filed after 28 years, was specifically raised.

4. On the basis of said pleadings, the trial Court framed following six issues with findings thereon: -

Findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court: -

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the alienation made by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants' father is neither invalid nor void and further held that the suit is barred by limitation by answering issue Nos.1 & 5 against which the plaintiffs preferred first appeal before the first appellate Court in which the plaintiffs raised eight grounds before the first appellate Court which state as under: -

6. A careful perusal of the grounds of first appeal would show that the plaintiffs have only challenged the finding of the trial Court on issue Nos.1 to 4, they did not challenge the finding on issue No.5 i.e. the suit is barred by limitation.

7. The first appellate Court by its impugned judgment & decree framed following question for determination as held in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment which states as under: -

8. The first appellate Court in paragraph 7 of its judgment only recorded the submissions of the plaintiffs / appellants therein which relate to issue Nos.1 to 4 only and no argument on the question of limitation was raised, therefore, it was rightly not recorded. But it is nowhere apparent from the judgment of the learned first appellate Court as to whether the respondents (therein) were