1. Heard Mr. K. P. Sarma, learned Senior counsel for the appellants in both the appeals. Also heard Mr. A. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in RSA 193/2004, and for respondent No. 1 in RSA 194/2004.

2. The respondent No. 1 in RSA 194/2004 had filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 10/94, in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 1, at Goalpara, against the appellants in RSA 194/2004 for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of Schedule-A and Schedule-B land; for a decree of mesne profit @ Rs. 1,000/- per month with effect from 01.03.94 with interest @ 15% per annum; injunction, etc. Schedule-B land, measuring 1 Katha, is within Schedule-A land and Schedule-A land measures 1 Katha 12 Lecha. Recovery of possession was sought for in respect of Schedule-B land by evicting the defendants. The details in respect of the claim, as set out in the plaint will be adverted to subsequently. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial court by a judgment and decree dated 23.12.02. An appeal, being Title Appeal No. 4/2004, was preferred before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Goalpara, and by a judgment and decree dated 28.05.04, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was reversed and the appeal was allowed.

3. The appellants in RSA 193/2004 had also filed a suit praying for right, title and interest in respect of Schedule-A land measuring 1 Katha 12 Lecha, which also formed the subject matter for declaration of right, title and interest in Title Suit No. 10/94. Prayer was made for recovery of possession of Schedule-B land measuring 12 Lecha as well as for cancellation of the sale deeds being Sale Deed No. 4398 dated 25.11.82 and Sale Deed No. 1965 dated 19.03.84 declaring the same to be void. Mesne profit @ Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit was also a prayer in the suit. The suit was registered in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 1, Goalpara, as Title Suit No. 75/94. The facts, as projected in the suit, would be dealt with at a subsequent stage. The suit was decreed by a judgement and decree dated 23.12.02. An appeal, being Title Appeal No. 3/04, was preferred before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Goalpara, which was allowed by a judgment and decree dated 28.05.04.

4. It is to be noted that both in the trial court as well as in the first appellate court separate judgments are passed though the suits and the appeals were taken up for consideration together.

5. RSA 193/04 was admitted to be heard by an order dated 03.12.04 on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the plaintiff’s suit for right, title and khas possession of the suit land and declaration of the sale deed as void and cancellation of the same is governed by Article 60(a) or Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963?

2. Whether the finding of the appellate court that the suit is barred by equitable estoppels is based on misconception of law relating to doctrine of estoppel that there can be no estoppel against the statute and hence perverse?

3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the instant case the sale deed dated 25.11.82 (Ext.-3) and sale deed dated 19.03.94 (Ext.-5) is void in view of provisions of Section 364 of Mohammedan Law?”

6. On the very same date, i.e. on 03.12.04, RSA 194/04 was also admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the finding of the appellate court that even if the suit land is proved to be share of minors, the claim is barred by doctrine of Equitable estoppels and the defendant/appellant cannot challenge and the defect in sale of the minor’s share of land vide sale deeds, Ext.-3 and Ext.-5 if any has been perfected by law of estoppels is based on misconception of law relating to doctrine of estoppels that there can be no estoppels against a s