Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Appeal No. 1038 of 1996 has been presented before the Court by Sri Amar Chandra (since deceased and substituted by his legal representatives), defendant No. 1 in original suit, while Appeal No. 1130 of 1996 has been filed by Smt. Vidyawati, defendant No. 2 in original suit. The appellants are aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 16.9.1996 passed by Smt. Sandhya Bhatt, XIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 966 of 1988, whereby it has allowed appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.7.1988 passed by IVth Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur in Original Suit No. 344 of 1978, as a result whereof the suit has been decreed.

2. The Appeal No. 1038 of 1996 was admitted on 29.11.1996, I did not find from the order that this Court formulated any substantial question of law, though in the memo of appeal defendant-appellant had framed 10 substantial questions of law. However, learned counsel for the appellant pressed only two substantial questions of law, as under:

(A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the suit for cancellation of sale-deed was barred by time when it was filed after the limitation prescribed from the date of knowledge?

(B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Lower Appellate Court was correct in allowing the appeal even though there was enormous evidence that the knowledge in respect of sale-deed received by appellant more than three years of limitation prescribed for cancellation of sale-deed?

3. Second Appeal No. 1130 of 1996 was admitted on 18.12.1996 on the substantial questions of law formulated as ‘A’ and ‘B’ in the memo of appeal, which read as under:

(A) Whether the suit was barred on account of limitation and can the Lower Appellate Court decree the suit reversing the finding of Trial Court?

(B) Whether the suit is barred on account of estopple and acquiescence?

4. Learned counsel for both the parties have addressed this Court on the aforesaid questions.

5. Original Suit No. 1072 of 1974 (re-numbered as 344 of 1978), was instituted by Smt. Kamla Devi, daughter of Late Debi Dayal, in the Court of Munsif City, Kanpur impleading Sri Amar Chand son of Genda Lal and Smt. Vidyawati wife of Ram Chandra, as defendants No. 1 and 2, respectively, seeking a declaration that sale-deed dated 25.9.1963, details whereof have been given in the plaint, be declared void and cancelled; and, the Sub-Registrar be required to record its cancellation under Section 31 of Specific Reliefs Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1963”). It has further sought a decree of delivery of possession of property, detailed in the plaint as under:

“East : Adjoining Kharrail of Sri Saktoo Nai.

West: Adjoining house, Ram Dulari Gupta Bhawan of Bonde Halwai.

North: Boundary wall 42'-9" long with a door in between thereafter Nala lane and thereafter boundary wall of the back compound of Poonam Cinema.

South: Boundary wall having a door at the western end portion of 7'-4" and the rest of wall 61' thereafter common passage and the premises of Sri Ajudhi.”

6. A third prayer was added by amendment seeking damages, pandente lite and future, for use and occupation of suit property by defendants, at the rate of Rs. 20/- per day.

7. The plaint case set up is that, the plaintiff is owner of Plot No. 252, Muzaffarpur, Kanpur, having area of 3 Biawas alongwith other lands of Muzaffarpur (Pardevanpur). The defendant No. 1 is a trespasser on the said land having fraudulently forced his entry thereon, on the back of plaintiff, after getting some construction on the part of land, raising boundary wall in the north and south, got municipal number as House No. 420-A (new No. 45). Originally the aforesaid plot No. 252 belong to Sri Debi Dayal, father of plaintiff, wherefrom it was inherited by his son Jeevan Lal, who left house sometimes at the end of