JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.1998 passed by learned District Judge, Solan camp at Nalagarh in Civil Appeal No. 86- NL/13 of 1996, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh in Civil Suit No. 420/1 of 1991 dated 29.10.1996 has been affirmed and appeal dismissed. 2. The facts of the case not in controversy, in a nut-shell, are that Jangi was the common ancestor of the parties to the present lis. He was succeeded by his two sons Anant Ram and Dhani Ram. Dhani Ram had two sons namely Govind Ram and Shiv Saran. They both have since died and the parties to the present lis are their legal heirs. Anant Ram was issueless. He adopted during his lifetime Shiv Saran, predecessor-ininterest of defendants vide adoption deed dated 29.02.1999, Ext. PW-1/A. On the death of Anant Ram, it is Shiv Saran who inherited his property vide mutation No. 14 dated 01.12.1955, however, on the death of Dhani Ram, the estate he left behind was mutated in favour of both Govind Ram and Shiv Saran vide mutation No. 11 dated 26.02.2005 Therefore, Shiv Saran came to be entered being owner of the property left behind by his father deceased Dhani Ram to the extent of half share along with his brother Govind Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. On the basis of such entries Shiv Saran filed an application for separation of the land to the extent of half share out of the suit land before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nalagarh in the year 1978. The plaintiffs, however, have raised the question of title on the ground that after being adopted as his son by Anant Ram, he left with no right, title or interest in the suit property. Learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade has, therefore, dismissed the application with liberty to deceased Shiv Saran to get the question of title so raised decided in a Civil Court having jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. Said Shiv Saran instead of filing a suit in the civil Court, preferred an appeal registered as Case No. 13/79 before the Collector, Nalgarh against the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Said Shiv Saran instead of filing a suit in the civil Court, preferred an appeal registered as Case No. 13/79 before the Collector, Nalgarh against the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. The appeal, however, also met with the same fate because learned Collector has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Since in the record-of-rights, the suit land entered in Khewat/Khatauni No. 9/9 Kitas 11 measuring 6b-4b is in exclusive possession and ownership of the plaintiff and land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 10/10 Kita 13 measuring 11b-2b is in exclusive possession and ownership of the parforma defendants and land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 11/11 kitas 8 measuring 11b-19b is in joint possession and ownership of the plaintiff and proforma defendants and land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 16/16 Kitas 3 measuring 9 bighas is in joint possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants to the extent of shares given in the Jamabandi and land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 7/7 Kitas 6 measuring 1b-19b as per entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 situated in village Malaun Bhagatan, Hadbasts No. 107, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. was recorded to the extent of half share in the name of said Shiv Saran on the basis of mutation of inheritance sanctioned and attested in his favour and in that of his brother Govind Ram, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff and on the death of their father Dhani Ram and as said Shiv Saran was adopted son of Anant Ram, his real (Taya), the plaintiffs, therefore, sought declaration to the effect that it is they along with defendants No. 11 and 12 are exclusive owner in possession of the suit land and the entries showing the defendants as owners in possession are illegal, null and void, hence void-abinitio having no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants thereon. As a consequential relief, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in the suit land and claiming any right, title or interest in any manner whatsoever was also sought to be passed. 3. In the written statement, the defendants have raised preliminary objections that the suit in the present form was not maintainable and that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs and against them. 3. In the written statement, the defendants have raised preliminary objections that the suit in the present form was not maintainable and that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs and against them. On merits, they did not dispute adoption of their predecessor-in-interest Shri Shiv Saran by Anant Ram. It is, however, denied that Shiv Saran was formally adopted by said Shiv Saran. He rather was enjoying the status of ‘Daya Mushayna’ i.e. sons of two fathers. He was born to Dhani Ram and adopted by way of ‘Kritrima adoption’ by his uncle Anant Ram. Shiv Saran was never adopted formally or by ‘Dataka’ adoption so as to sever ties/status of Shiv Saran from his father Dhani Ram and his family. No ceremony relating to his adoption by Anant Ram took place. No ceremony qua Shiv Saran giving in adoption by Dhani Ram and receiving in adoption by Shri Anant Ram has taken place at the relevant time. In case the plaintiffs prove adoption deed dated 29.2.1999 B.K. then in that event also, the adoption was not legal or valid for want of fulfillment of requirement of Hindu Law. Such adoption at the most tantamount to appointment of Shri Shiv Saran as his heir by Anant Ram. 4. It was further urged that Shiv Saran did not suffer severance of his status from his father at any point of time including 29.2.1999 B.K. It is denied that Shiv Saran was brought up and married by Anant Ram in the capacity of his adopted son. Therefore, it is denied that the suit land devolved upon father of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants alone on the death of their father Govind Ram. On the other hand, the suit land on the death of Dhani Ram vested in said Shri Govind Ram and Shiv Saran being sons of said Shri Dhani Ram. Mutation No. 11 was sanctioned on 26.2.2005 B.K. in their favour on the death of Shri Dhani Ram. It is also denied that Govind Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs remained in possession of the suit land without any interference of Shiv Saran of the land he inherited from his adopted father Anant Ram vide mutation No. 14 dated 01.12.1995. Mutation No. 11 was sanctioned on 26.2.2005 B.K. in their favour on the death of Shri Dhani Ram. It is also denied that Govind Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs remained in possession of the suit land without any interference of Shiv Saran of the land he inherited from his adopted father Anant Ram vide mutation No. 14 dated 01.12.1995. It is also denied that Shiv Saran and Anant Ram during their lifetime had been admitting that Shiv Saran will alone be the owner of the estate of Anant Ram. It is rather Govind Ram, his brother who always admitted said Shiv Saran to be a co-sharer in the suit land to the extent of half share. It is admitted that the application filed by Shiv Saran for partition of the suit land was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. It is also admitted that an appeal preferred to the Collector was also dismissed. It is, however, clarified that Shiv Saran could not seek declaration to the effect that he is owner of the suit land to the extent of half share and that there is no severance of said Shiv Saran from his father and the family even after being adopted as his son by uncle Anant Ram could not be filed because the plaintiffs had admitted his claim qua he being the owner of the suit land to the extent of half share. It is also averred that when the plaintiffs themselves submit that Shiv Saran had executed a will of the suit land in their favour, it leads to the only conclusion that they had admitted his ownership over the suit land to the extent of half share. The plaintiffs, therefore, cannot raise self destructive pleas i.e. on one hand denying his title in the suit land, whereas, on the other setting up the plea of he having executed a will qua bequeathing suit land to the extent of half share in his ownership. 5. In counter-claim, the defendants have sought the decree to the effect that they are cosharers/ co-owners in possession to the extent of half share in the suit land. The suit has been sought to be dismissed. 6. In replication, the plaintiffs have denied the contentions to the contrary being wrong and on merits reiterated their case as set out in the plaint. 7. The suit has been sought to be dismissed. 6. In replication, the plaintiffs have denied the contentions to the contrary being wrong and on merits reiterated their case as set out in the plaint. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether Shri Shiv Saran was validly adopted by his uncle Anant Ram, as alleged. If so, its effect? ..OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether Shri Shiv Saran is not entitled to succeed to the property of his natural father Shri Dhani Ram, as alleged? ..OPP 3. Whether Shri Shiv Saran executed a valid will dated 2.6.1986 in favour of the plaintiff and proforma defendants, as alleged, if so its effect? ..OPP 4. Whether mutation attested on the death of Shri Dhani Ram and consequently the revenue entries made on its basis are wrong and illegal, as alleged? ..OPP 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? …OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? ..OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct?.. OPD 8. Whether the order dated 8.6.1990 passed by the settlement Officer, Bilaspur is wrong and illegal, as alleged? ..OPD 9. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? ..OPD 10. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs u/s 35-A of CPC. If so, their quantum? ..OPD 11. Whether the defendant No. 1 to 10 are entitled to the declaration prayed for? OPD 12. Whether the contesting defendants are entitled to the decree of injunction prayed for? ..OPD 13. Whether the defendants have no cause of action for the counter claim? ..OPD 14. Whether the counter claim of the defendants are time barred? ..OPP 15. Whether the counter claim is not maintainable, as alleged? ..OPP 16. Relief. 8. Plaintiff No. 1 Shri Niku Ram has himself stepped into the witness box as PW-3 and examined Shri Devi Lal, PW-4 and also Babu Ram as PW-2. Shri Tehal Dass is the registration Clerk, who has proved the adoption deed Ext. PW-1/A to be true and correct. The defendants on the other hand have examined Shri Babu Ram, DW-1. Shri Balbir, defendant No.4 has also stepped into the witness box as DW-2. Shri Tehal Dass is the registration Clerk, who has proved the adoption deed Ext. PW-1/A to be true and correct. The defendants on the other hand have examined Shri Babu Ram, DW-1. Shri Balbir, defendant No.4 has also stepped into the witness box as DW-2. The reliance on behalf of the plaintiffs was placed on ‘Misal Hakiyat’, jamabandis for the year 1988-89, Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-2 and also mutations Ext. P-3 and Ext. P-6. The reliance was also placed on the orders passed by learned Collector, Nalagarh, Ext. P-4 and by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ext. P-5 in the partition proceedings sought to be initiated by Shiv Saran, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. The defendants have also placed reliance on the revenue record Ext. D-1 to Ext. D-9, mutations Ext. D-10 and Ext. D-11. They have also placed reliance on the order Ext. D-12 passed by the Collector-cum-Settlement Officer Consolidation of Holdings, Bilaspur to show that will of Shiv Saran qua suit land set-up by the plaintiffs was not a genuine document and rather forged and fictitious. 9. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence oral as well as documentary has answered issues No. 1, 2 and 4 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, whereas, issue No. 3 against the plaintiffs having not been pressed. Issues No. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 were answered against the defendants for want of any legal evidence, whereas, in view of the findings on issue No. 3, issue No. 8 was decided against the plaintiffs. In view of findings on issues No. 4 and 12, issues No. 11 and 12 were also decided against the defendants, whereas, issues No. 13 and 15 in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No. 14 qua counter-claim preferred by the defendants within limitation was also decided against them. As a result of the findings recoded by learned trial Judge on all the issues, the suit was decreed and the counter-claim dismissed. 10. The defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court had questioned the legality and validity thereof before learned appellate Court. The said Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 11. It is the defendants who are in second appeal before this Court. 10. The defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court had questioned the legality and validity thereof before learned appellate Court. The said Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 11. It is the defendants who are in second appeal before this Court. They are aggrieved from the impugned judgment and decree on the grounds inter alia that the real point in controversy was neither considered nor determined in accordance with law. The rules of receiving evidence have completely been ignored, which has caused prejudice to the defendants. The evidence produced by the plaintiffs beyond the scope of their pleadings could have not been relied upon. The evidence produced by them was even inadmissible and unreliable and is stated to have erroneously relied upon. The claim in the suit as laid by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation as after the death of Dhani Ram, grand-father of the parties on both sides, the plaintiffs always considered and accepted Shiv Saran, predecessor-in-interest of defendants to be joint owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of ½ share. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated in its right perspective. The admissions made by the plaintiffs have also been wrongly ignored and findings that plea of ‘Khangi Vasiyat’ (PW-2/A) should be ignored on account of being disputed by the defendants are stated to be erroneous. The evidence available on record is stated to be not appreciated in its right perspective. 12. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether no case is made out for raising presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, as regards to the signature and every other part of the document purporting to be in the hand-writing of its scribe and as regards to the execution and attestation of alleged adoption deed dated 29.09.1999 B.K. 2. Whether the factum of Adoption of late Sh. Shiv Saran by his uncle, Shri Anant Ram in a particular form, i.e. by way of custom or otherwise has neither been pleaded nor proved. 3. Whether in the absence of setting up custom of adoption and for want of proof thereof, Shri Shiv Saran cannot be held to be adopted son of late Sh. Anant Ram, especially when the plea of giving and taking is missing. 4. 3. Whether in the absence of setting up custom of adoption and for want of proof thereof, Shri Shiv Saran cannot be held to be adopted son of late Sh. Anant Ram, especially when the plea of giving and taking is missing. 4. Whether the long outstanding entries regarding inheritance of the estate of natural father, Shri Dhani Ram by Shiv Saran and Govind Ram were right upto 1978 and presumed to be correct and late Sh. Shiv Saran has to be held having lawfully succeeded his father. 5. Whether the presumption of truth as attached to the entries in revenue record in favour of the appellants have not been rebutted by the respondents. 6. Whether the material admissions made by the respondents in favour of the appellants have been erroneously ignored. 7. Whether on the basis of Khangi Vasiyat exhibit Ext. PW-2/A, the claim of the respondent is totally demolished. 13. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate has strenuously contended that on the death of Dhani Ram, the father of Shiv Saran, predecessor-in-interest of defendants and Govind Ram, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff, the mutation of the suit land was sanctioned and attested in their names to the extent of half share. According to Mr. Bhushan, it is sufficient to infer that said Shri Shiv Saran, predecessor-in-interest of defendants was owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of half share. Even the plaintiffs by setting up the plea of will of the suit land to the extent of half share by him in their favour also substantiates the claim of the defendants that said Shri Shiv Saran was owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of half share. The suit filed on 23.12.1991 was stated to be hopelessly time barred, as according to Mr. Bhushan, the mutation was attested on 01.12.1955, whereas, the ‘Khangi Vasiyat’ did take place on 02.06.1986. Also that in the absence of the evidence that Shiv Saran was validly adopted by Anant Ram after observance of all ceremonies, his severance from his natural father Dhani Ram and his family never took place and as such, he was entitled to inherit the property left behind by his natural father Dhani Ram on his death. 14. On the other hand, Mr. 14. On the other hand, Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the respondents-plaintiffs while repelling the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellants-defendants has forcefully contended that substantial questions of law as formulated for adjudication in this appeal are beyond pleadings of defendants and to the contrary in the written statement, the defendants have admitted the adoption of Shiv Saran, predecessor-in-interest of Anant Ram. There are no pleadings to establish the theory of ‘Daya Mushayna’. When the plaintiffs raised the question of title during the course of proceedings before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, such proceedings were dismissed with liberty reserved to said Shiv Saran to get the question so raised decided from the civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter. He, however, not filed any suit and as such the order passed by the Collector and Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ext. P-4 and Ext. P-5 have attained finality. It is also pointed that had deceased Shiv Saran was not adopted son of deceased Anant Ram for all intents and purposes, how he could have inherited the property of said Shri Anant Ram on his death. It is also pointed out that the adoption deed of being dated 29.02.1999 B.K. is a document more than 30 years old. Being a registered deed, the same is admissible in evidence. It is also urged that document being old one, with the passage of time, strict proof qua performance of all ceremonies at that time cannot be produced at this stage. 15. Now if coming to adjudication of substantial questions of law as formulated, it would not be improper to conclude that adoption deed Ext. PW-1/A being a registered document is legally admissible in evidence. This document, as a matter of fact, is more than 30 years old. In terms of Section 98 of the Evidence Act, presumption qua its contents and writing and also the signatures of the person by whom the same was executed can be drawn. Once it is proved that the document was signed, executed and attested appropriately, the contents thereof stand automatically proved. In terms of Section 98 of the Evidence Act, presumption qua its contents and writing and also the signatures of the person by whom the same was executed can be drawn. Once it is proved that the document was signed, executed and attested appropriately, the contents thereof stand automatically proved. The contents of this document that Shri Anant Ram adopted father of Shir Shiv Saran had received the same with the consent of Shri Dhani Ram his natural father, leads to the only conclusion that Shri Shiv Saran was given in adoption by Dhani Ram to his brother Anant Ram two years prior to the execution of deed Ext. PW-1/A in the presence of ‘Biradari’(all family members). Therefore, learned lower appellate Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity while concluding so, that too, after placing reliance on the commentary to this effect of Hindu Law by Mulla. 16. The plaintiffs have set up the plea that Shiv Saran was taken in adoption by his uncle Anant Ram and a registered deed Ext. PW-1/A was executed in this regard. The defendants have not denied this part of the plaintiffs’ case and rather admitted the same to be true and correct. Being so, there was no occasion to the plaintiffs to have produced evidence to show that Shiv Saran was adopted by Anant Ram after performing all ceremonies. The onus was rather on the defendants to have proved otherwise. They, however, have neither pleaded nor proved as to how the adoption of Shiv Saran was not legal and valid or that he was not the adopted son of Anant Ram. Their plea in the written statement that said Shri Shiv Saran was not formally adopted by his uncle Anant Ram and rather he was enjoying the status of ‘Daya Mushayna’ i.e. sons of two fathers is also not at all proved as they miserably failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the status of said Shri Shiv Saran supported by the customs, usage or any tradition prevalent in the area. Similarly, the theory of ‘Kritrima adoption’, the defendants introduced in their written statement is also not supported by any evidence. Otherwise also, in terms of order Ext. P-4 of the Collector, Nalgarh ‘Kritrima’ form of adoption is prevalent in District Mithila area and adjoining districts. Similarly, the theory of ‘Kritrima adoption’, the defendants introduced in their written statement is also not supported by any evidence. Otherwise also, in terms of order Ext. P-4 of the Collector, Nalgarh ‘Kritrima’ form of adoption is prevalent in District Mithila area and adjoining districts. The defendants have never challenged order, Annexure P-4 nor proved that ‘Kritrima’ form of adoption is applicable in this part of the country also. The findings in Annexure P-4 rather reveal that ‘Dataka’ form of adoption is applicable in the entire country. Meaning thereby that as per this form of adoption, deceased Shiv Saran was adopted son of Anant Ram for all intents and purposes. It is also not established on record that he was adopted only as a heir for the sake of inheritance of the estate left behind by his adopted father Anant Ram. Therefore, had Shiv Saran been not the adopted son of Anant Ram how he could have inherited the property left behind by his father Anant Ram. Since said Shri Anant Ram was issueless, by way of inheritance the plaintiffs may, therefore, as per rule of natural succession would have also inherited the property left behind by him being his nephews. The claim of the plaintiffs that deceased Shiv Saran has admitted the claim of Govind Ram his brother over the entire suit land, whereas, said Shri Govind Ram the claim of said Shiv Saran over the property left behind by his uncle Anant Ram is nearer to the factual position. 17. This Court in Budhi Prakash and others V. Smt. Dekhnu and others 2014(Suppl.) Him.L.R. 2244, after taking note of various judgments has held that strict proof of adoption with the passage of time may not be available nor should be insisted for. This judgment reads as follows:- “26. On re-appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence in the manner aforesaid it is well established that no doubt, plaintiff is the daughter of deceased Naranjan, however, defendant No. 1 Bali Bahadur was adopted as son by the deceased well before her birth. The giving and receiving of defendant in adoption also stands proved not only from the oral evidence but also the documentary evidence available on record. The giving and receiving of defendant in adoption also stands proved not only from the oral evidence but also the documentary evidence available on record. Although, strict proof as required in terms of the provisions contained under the Act discussed hereinabove qua adoption of the defendant, is not available on record, however, with the passage of time the burden to prove that he was not adopted son of deceased Naranjan was upon the plaintiff. As discussed hereinabove, she has failed to discharge such onus, therefore, how she could have succeeded in the suit. Above all, as discussed hereinabove, strict proof after long lapse of time which in the present case appears to be 40 years could have not been possibly produced.” 18. In view of the above, substantial questions of law, therefore, does not at all arise for adjudication in the given facts and circumstances. Otherwise also, such questions of law are beyond the pleadings of the defendants. 19. Now if coming to the substantial questions of law No. 5, 7 and 8, it would not be improper to conclude that same also does not arise for determination in this case for the reason that mutation of inheritance attested in favour of Shiv Saran and his brother Govind Ram on the death of their father Dhani Ram came up for scrutiny before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and Collector, Nalagarh during the course of partition proceedings. Since the plaintiffs had raised the question of title, which was left open to be decided by the civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter, the application for partition filed by Shiv Saran was dismissed. Said Shiv Saran during his lifetime never made any effort to seek declaration that he was not validly adopted son of Anant Ram and rather only appointed as his heir. Therefore, the entries in the revenue record on the basis of mutation of inheritance were hardly of any consequence to the case of defendants. No doubt, the plaintiffs had admitted the attestation of mutation of inheritance on the death of Dhani Ram in the names of his two sons Shiv Saran and Govind Ram. However, the defendants cannot take any benefit of admission so made for the reason that the title of Shiv Saran in the suit land on the basis of mutation of inheritance was disputed by the plaintiffs during the course of partition proceedings. However, the defendants cannot take any benefit of admission so made for the reason that the title of Shiv Saran in the suit land on the basis of mutation of inheritance was disputed by the plaintiffs during the course of partition proceedings. As already noticed, said Shri Shiv Saran never got decided the question of title by way of initiating proceedings to this effect in the civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter. True it is that the plaintiffs had set up the plea of ‘Khangi Vasiyat’ viz. document Ext. PW-2/A. This plea, however, was not pressed by them during the course of arguments in the suit. Learned trial Judge, therefore, has decided issue No. 3 qua this aspect of the matter being not pressed by them. Otherwise also, the admission qua attestation of mutation and setting up the plea of ‘Khangi Vasiyat’ cannot be treated to be two separate and self-destructive pleas as argued on behalf of the defendants for the reason that the plaintiffs if entitled to plead may even raise inconsistent pleas if thereby neither the cause of action would change nor the relief as sought materially effected. Support in this regard can be drawn form the judgment of the apex Court in G. Nagamma and another V. Siromanamma and another, (1996) 2 SCC 25 . 20. In the case in hand, the relief claimed is that it is the plaintiffs and proforma defendants exclusive owner in possession of the suit land and the entries to the contrary in the revenue record showing the defendants to be owner thereof to the extent of half share are illegal, null and void. Had the plea of ‘Khangi Vasiyat’ been pressed into service by the plaintiffs, the same would have facilitated to strengthen their claim that it is they who are exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. 21. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, has also raised the question of limitation during the course of arguments. It is seen that there is no pleadings that defendants have ever pleaded point of limitation in their defence. It is for this reason, no issue qua limitation was framed in the suit. Though in the grounds of appeal, the question of limitation has also been raised as one of the grounds, however, this Court while admitting the appeal, no question of law has been formulated on this score. It is for this reason, no issue qua limitation was framed in the suit. Though in the grounds of appeal, the question of limitation has also been raised as one of the grounds, however, this Court while admitting the appeal, no question of law has been formulated on this score. True it is that the substantial questions of law if arise for adjudication can be framed at any stage of the proceedings in an appeal, however, limitation which is a mixed questions of law and facts when never pleaded in their defence by the defendants, no such questions of law arise for determination at this stage in this appeal. 22. In view of what has been said hereinabove, no question of law muchless substantial question of law as formulated arise for determination in the present appeal. As such, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.