JUDGMENT & ORDER : J.B. Pardiwala, J. This Second Appeal under Section-100 of the CPC is at the instance of the original plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and order dated 02/04/2018 passed by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Vadodara in the Regular Civil Appeal No.99 of 2014 filed by the appellants herein against the judgment, order and decree dated 10/11/2014 passed by the learned 10th Additional Civil Judge, Vadodara in the Regular Civil Suit No.1572 of 1994. 2. Before dealing with this Second Appeal on merits, it is necessary for me to state that this is a sponsored litigation. It appears that few builders interested in the suit-land want the appellants herein to pursue this litigation despite the fact that the appellants are not interested to litigate against the other side i.e. the original defendants. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the lawful owners of agricultural land bearing Census No.553 admeasuring 2 Acre - 7 Gunthas situated at mouje Village - Gotri, District - Vadodara. The plaintiffs herein are the legal heirs of deceased Kanjibhai Hothabhai Solanki. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land came to be gifted by the father of the plaintiffs viz.Hothabhai Mangalbhai in favour of the plaintiffs by a registered gift-deed dated 02/01/1961. It is the say of the plaintiffs that despite the fact that the suit-land came to be transferred by way of a registered gift-deed dated 02/01/1961 late Hothabhai Mangalbhai sold the very same land by a registered sale-deed executed in favour of the defendants nos.1 to 5 viz. Fulabhai Mansukhbhai on 12/08/1964. Thereafter, the deceased Fulabhai Mansukhbhai sold the said land to the plaintiffs nos.4 and 5 and in favour of one Parsottam Bakore [deceased] by a registered sale-deed dated 12/11/1968 for a total sale-consideration of Rs. 9,999/-. According to the plaintiffs, they learnt about such transfer some time in the year 1991 and having come to know about such transfer first initiated revenue proceedings before the revenue authorities followed by a civil suit. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs prayed for the following declaration and injunction:- Allow the suit of plaintiff and pass order to declare the Sale Deed of land bearing Survey No.553, Acre 2-7 Guntha, situated at MoujeGotri, Taluka- Vadodara, executed by deceased Hothabhai Mangalbhai in favour of deceased Fulabhai Mansukhbhai- father of respondent no.1,2,3 on 12-08-1964 for Rs. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs prayed for the following declaration and injunction:- Allow the suit of plaintiff and pass order to declare the Sale Deed of land bearing Survey No.553, Acre 2-7 Guntha, situated at MoujeGotri, Taluka- Vadodara, executed by deceased Hothabhai Mangalbhai in favour of deceased Fulabhai Mansukhbhai- father of respondent no.1,2,3 on 12-08-1964 for Rs. 15,000/- and Sale Deed dated 12-11-1968 executed by deceased Fulabhai Mansukhbhai- father of respondent no.1,2,3 in favour of respondent no.4,5 and deceased Parshottambhai Bakorbhai as unlawful, null and void. Moreover, direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of Suit-land owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. 4. The defendants appeared in the suit and denied the case put up by the original plaintiffs in their suit. The plaintiffs denied about the suitland being gifted by way of a gift-deed of the year 1961 by Hothabhai Mangalbhai. According to the defendants nos.1, 2 and 3, the suit-land was purchased by their father viz.Fulabhai Mansukhbhai from Hothabhai Mangalbhai by way of a registered sale-deed executed in the year 1964. The defendants nos.4 and 5 also asserted that they had acquired the land from Fulabhai Mansukhbhai. 5. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court vide Exh.41 framed the following issues. (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have acquired the suit land by registered gift-deed from deceased Mr. Hothabhai Mangalbhai? (2) Whether the defendants Nos.1 to 3 prove that their father deceased Fulabhai Mansukhbhai acquired the suit land by sale deed from Hothabhai Mangalbhai who had right to sale the suit land? (3) Whether the defendants Nos.4 and 5 prove that they have acquired the suit land by sale from deceased Fulabhai Mansukhbhai Mali who had right to sale? (4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have right interest in the suit land as owner and possessor? (5) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled permanent injunction? 6. The issues framed by the trial Court referred to above came to be answered as under:- (1) In the negative. (2) In the affirmative. (3) In the affirmative. (4) In the negative. (5) In the negative. 7. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish any right, title or interest over the suit-land on the basis of the registered gift-deed purported to have been executed by late Hothabhai Mangalbhai. (2) In the affirmative. (3) In the affirmative. (4) In the negative. (5) In the negative. 7. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish any right, title or interest over the suit-land on the basis of the registered gift-deed purported to have been executed by late Hothabhai Mangalbhai. The trial Court also recorded a finding that the defendants nos.1 to 3 could establish that the suit-land was acquired by their father Fulabhai Mansukhbhai by way of a sale-deed executed by Hothabhai Mangalbhai. Ultimately, the trial Court thought fit to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs. 8. While answering the issues nos.2 and 3 in the affirmative and while answering the issues nos.1 and 4 in the negative, the trial Court observed as under:- Issue Number :- 2 (10/2) The burden of proving issue number 2 is on the defendants nos.1 to 3. Upon perusing the statement of defendant nos. 1 to 3 produced vide Exhibit - 50 and written arguments, it appears that defendants nos.1 to 3 have given statements in favour of the plaintiff. They have stated that they did not know that Hothabhai Mangalbhai - father of the plaintiff executed sale deed in favour of Fulabhai Mansukhbhai - father of defendant nos.1 to 3, and they do not accept the sale deed executed by Fulabhai Mansukhbhai - father of defendant nos. 1 to 3, in favour of plaintiff number 4 and 5 and Parsottam Bakor Defendant nos. 1 to 3 of this case have not cross- examined the plaintiff and they have not given any evidence. Advocate of the defendant number 5 has submitted that the land in dispute was sold many years ago by father of defendant nos. 1 to 3 to defendant nos. 4 and 5 and Parsottam Bakorbhai by executing sale deed. Therefore, defendant nos. 1 to 3 do not have any interest or right in the property therefore they have given statements in favour of plaintiff. At present, defendant no. 5 has the possession of property in dispute therefore the documentary evidence produced by defendant number 5 should be considered. Upon perusing the certified copy of sale deed, produced vide Exhibit - 166, executed by Hothabhai Mangalbhai in favour of Fulabhai - father of defendant nos. At present, defendant no. 5 has the possession of property in dispute therefore the documentary evidence produced by defendant number 5 should be considered. Upon perusing the certified copy of sale deed, produced vide Exhibit - 166, executed by Hothabhai Mangalbhai in favour of Fulabhai - father of defendant nos. 1 to 3, it appears that Hothabhai Mangalbhai had transferred all the rights alongwith possession of property in dispute to Fulabhai - father of defendant nos. 1 to 3. The said deed is registered. Upon perusing the documentary evidence produced in this case, it appears that property in dispute was inherited by Hothabhai Mangalbhai - father of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs of this case are not legal heirs of Hothabhai Mangalbhai and no legal heirs of Hothabhai Mangalbhai have been mentioned on record. Hothabhai Mangalbhai had firstly sold the land in his possession and ownership to Ambalalbhai on condition and thereafter Ambalalbhai sold the land in dispute to Hothabhai Mangalbhai and plaintiff number 1 Budhabhai, thereafter Hothabhai sold the property in dispute to Fulabhai - father of defendant nos. 1 to 3. The said sale deed has been produced by plaintiff vide Exhibit - 58 vide note number 1130. As per above discussion, the gift deed executed by heirs of plaintiff number 2 in favour of plaintiff number 2 is not legally proved. Hothabhai Mangalbhai inherited the property in dispute and became the lawful owner and occupant of the property in dispute, and there is no error found in the sale executed by him in favour of Fulabhai - father of defendant nos. 1 to 3, moreover, plaintiff has not given any evidence in connection with any error in the said sale deed. Therefore, after perusing all the documentary evidences on record, I give reply to issue no. 2 in affirmative. Issue Number 3:- (10/3) The burden of proving issue no. 3 is on defendant number 5. Discussion has already been done in issue no. 1 and 2 while giving reasons for my decisions, therefore it will not be repeated. As per above discussion, Hothabhai Mangalbhai has inherited the property in dispute. Plaintiff number 2 has failed to prove the legality of the gift deed executed in favour of plaintiff number 2. Hothabhai Mangalbhai - father of the plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of Fulabhai - father of defendant nos. As per above discussion, Hothabhai Mangalbhai has inherited the property in dispute. Plaintiff number 2 has failed to prove the legality of the gift deed executed in favour of plaintiff number 2. Hothabhai Mangalbhai - father of the plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of Fulabhai - father of defendant nos. 1 to 3 transferring all the property rights alongwith possession, and Fulabhai Mansukhbhai - father of defendant nos. 1 to 3, after becoming lawful owner and occupant of the property, sold the property in dispute to plaintiff number 4 and 5 and Parsottam Bakor by executing a sale deed. Therefore, Fulabhai had obtained the property rights, and there is no error found in the sale executed by him, plaintiff has not given any evidence for proving any error in the said sale deed. Therefore, after perusing all the documentary evidences on record, I give reply to issue no. 3 in affirmative. Issue Number 4 & 5 :- (10/4) Issue number 4 and 5 being correlated, to avoid repetition, discussion of these two issues has been done concurrently. Upon perusing the evidences produced by plaintiff, it appears that the gift deed produced at Exhibit - 57 is dated 02/01/1961, whereas the plaintiff has instituted present suit on 11/08/1994. Plaintiff has submitted that cause of action arose when he obtained certified copy of the record of land on 15/10/1991 and he came to know about it, and when defendant no. 4 and 5 replied rudely to him. Plaintiffs have instituted present suit 32 years after the gift deed was registered. As per section - 3 of the Limitation Act of India, if the suit of plaintiff suffers from bar of limitation, then it shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. Upon perusing the record of this case, it is found that the Plaintiffs have instituted present suit after 32 years. Plaintiff has not given any evidence regarding the cause of action mentioned by them in the application. In the gift deed produced vide Exhibit - 57, plaintiffs were one of the parties, therefore they were aware about such gift deed. Thereafter, Hothabhai Mangalbhai sold the property in dispute to father of defendant nos. 1 to 3 on 12/08/1964. Thereafter, Fulabhai - father of defendant nos. In the gift deed produced vide Exhibit - 57, plaintiffs were one of the parties, therefore they were aware about such gift deed. Thereafter, Hothabhai Mangalbhai sold the property in dispute to father of defendant nos. 1 to 3 on 12/08/1964. Thereafter, Fulabhai - father of defendant nos. 1 to 3 sold the land in dispute to defendant number 4 and 5 and deceased Pursottambhai on 12/11/1961, no fact regarding any legal proceeding initiated by plaintiffs against defendants during such period has come on record. Moreover, plaintiff has stated during his cross - examination that when the price of land in dispute increased, builders used to come and inquire about the land. At that time, he and Budhabhai used to tell the builders that they do not own the land, so the builders said that they will gather information from the record about the same. It is true that at the behest of builders, the suit was institited. Thus, the plaintiff has given different cause of action than what is mentioned in his application, therefore the suit instituted by plaintiff is clearly barred by limitation. Plaintiffs of this case are not lineal heirs of deceased Hothabhai Mangalbhai. Therefore they do not have any hereditary right in the property in dispute. Deceased Hothabhai Mangalbhai had inherited the property in dispute. As the legality of the gift deed executed by plaintiff number 2 is not proved, deceased Hothabhai Mangalbhai became lawful owner and occupant of the property in dispute. He sold the land in dispute by executing a sale deed in favour of Fulabhai, since then all the rights of the property in dispute were transferred to Fulabhai, therefore Hothabhai does not have any interest or right in the property in dispute. Plaintiffs of this case have instituted the suit based on property right derived from Hothabhai Mangalbhai, but as Hothabhai Mangalbhai transferred the property rights, plaintiffs do not have any right or interest in the said property. Therefore I give reply to issue no. 4 in negative. Plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have any right in the property in dispute. If injunction order is passed in favour of plaintiffs as prayed by plaintiffs, then defendant no. 5 will suffer more loss than plaintiffs, therefore I give reply to issue no. 5 in negative. 9. Therefore I give reply to issue no. 4 in negative. Plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have any right in the property in dispute. If injunction order is passed in favour of plaintiffs as prayed by plaintiffs, then defendant no. 5 will suffer more loss than plaintiffs, therefore I give reply to issue no. 5 in negative. 9. It needs to be noted that although the trial Court did not frame any issue with regard to the limitation yet there is a finding recorded by the trial Court that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was time barred as the suit ought to have been filed within three years for setting aside the transfer of property as prescribed under Article 60 of the Limitation Act. 10. The appellants herein - original plaintiffs have dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit preferred a Regular Civil Appeal No.99 of 2014 under Section-96 of the CPC in the Court of the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Vadodara. 11. The First Appellate Court upon re-appreciation of the entire oral evidence as well as documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed. The First Appellate Court ultimately dismissed the appeal thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit. 12. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for determination. (1) Whether the appellants/plaintiffs can point out that Ld. trial Court has erred in holding issue no.1 that they have not acquired suit land by registered gift deed? (2) Whether the appellants/plaintiffs can point out that Ld. Trial Court has erred in holding issue no.4 that they have no right interest in the suit land as owner and possessor? (3) Whether the appellants/plaintiffs can point out that Ld. Trial Court has committed any error in judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court on 10/11/2014 and the same are erroneous, capricious and perverse? (4) What order? 13. The afore-noted points answered as under:- (1) to (3) in the negative. (4) As per final order. 14. It appears that the first appellate court took notice of few very important admissions on the part of the plaintiff in his oral evidence recorded vide Exh.42. Let me reproduce the observations of the trial Court in this regard. Ld. 13. The afore-noted points answered as under:- (1) to (3) in the negative. (4) As per final order. 14. It appears that the first appellate court took notice of few very important admissions on the part of the plaintiff in his oral evidence recorded vide Exh.42. Let me reproduce the observations of the trial Court in this regard. Ld. Advocate for the respondent have forcefully argued that present suit has been filed by some builders, plaintiff has nothing to do with the suit land. Plaintiff Kanjibhai Hothabhai has been examined on oath at Ex.42 during his cross-examination he has admitted certain facts which are as under:- Hothabhai happens to be my real father. The suit land belonged to my father Hothabhai. This land did not belong to the ancestors. In the year 1961, my father had, without any reason, given the land in suit to me and my elder brother by way of gift deed...... It is true that Budhabhai was doing all the transactions on behalf of me... When I was young, Budhabhai was my guardian at that time and I do not have any dispute regarding the actions taken by Budhabhai on behalf of me. I have not raised any objection regarding the transactions carried out by Budhabhai regarding the land. Budhabhai was having all the rights to do the transactions of the land received by way of gift and in this regard, I do not have any objection till date. It is true that Budhabhai and Hothabhai had collectively sold out the said land bearing Survey No. 553, that is, the land in dispute to Ambalal Madhavbhai. It is true that the land bearing survey No. 553 was sold out in 1962. It is true that at that time, Ambalalbhai got the possession of the said land. It is true that Ambalalbhai had once again sold out this land to Hothabhai..... Possession of the land in suit is neither with me nor with heirs of Budhabhai. As the cost of the land in dispute has increased, many builders were coming to inquire about it. It is true that when builders were coming to inquire, I and Budhabhai were stating that the said land is not with me. It is true that the builder got the suit filed. This suit does not at all contain signature of mine or Budhabhai. It is true that when builders were coming to inquire, I and Budhabhai were stating that the said land is not with me. It is true that the builder got the suit filed. This suit does not at all contain signature of mine or Budhabhai. Considering the rival submission herein this appeal Exh.57 is important document. It is as under "..... Donor Solanki Hothabhai Mangalbhai, by caste Solanki Rajput, aged about 60, occupation farming, residing at Gotri, Taluka Vadodara and District Vadodara willingly executed gift deed in favour of Donee No. 1 Budhabhai Hothabhai Solanki, by caste Rajput, aged about 24 years, occupation farming, residing at Gotri, Taluka Vadodara and District Vadodara and minor Donee No. 2 Kanjibhai Hothabhai, aged about 12 years, whose guardian is Budhabhai Hothabhai Solanki, by caste Rajput, aged about 24 years, occupation farming, residing at Gotri, Taluka Vadodara, wherein it is mentioned that you are my step sons and while solemnizing marriage with your mother for the second time, I orally agreed to gift following property - land and house to you. As you were minor, I had not executed the gift deed. Now, as you, Donee No.1, are major, on being asked to execute deed, I execute gift deed in respect of immovable property - land and house in favour of you....." Considering aforesaid documents, plcaintiff Kanjibhai was minor at the time of execution of Ex.57, therefore he being minor his elder brother Budhabhai Hothabhai has accepted gift as per the say and submission of the plaintiff. On going through the records it appears that Hothabhai and Budhabhai both have executed conditional sale deed which is produced at Ex.132 on 28-05-1962. Considering the admission of Kanjibhai Hothabhai at Ex.42 wherein he has admitted that Budhabhai being his elder brother was acting as his guardian, hence, when Budhabhai has acted as guardian of Kanjibhai and executed sale deed Ex.132. Thereafter, re-conveyance deed has been executed by Ambalal Patel in favour of Budhabhai and Hothabhai. Again said land was sold out by Hothabhai Magalbhai in favour of Fulabhai Mansukhbhai vide Ex.166. Considering the entire records and proceedings of Ld. trial court and considering the admission made by Plaintiff Kanjibhai Hothabhai at Ex.42 it appears that Ld. trial court has not committed any error on facts and law. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Considering the entire records and proceedings of Ld. trial court and considering the admission made by Plaintiff Kanjibhai Hothabhai at Ex.42 it appears that Ld. trial court has not committed any error on facts and law. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Moksh Builders & Financers Ltd., (1977) AIR SC 409, is required to be considered, wherein it is held that:- "Admission by a party is substantive evidence of the fact admitted and admission duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective whether the party making them appear in the witness box or not and whether that party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statement in case it made a statement contrary to those admissions." Looking to the admission made by the plaintiff during the course of his cross-examination, it become clear that plaintiff failed to establishing his case. Plaintiff Kanjibhai has not filed the present suit but the present suit has been filed by some builders. Therefore, learned trial court has not committed any error. 15. It also appears that the first appellate Court recorded a finding that the suit was otherwise also time barred. In this regard the finding of the First Appellate Court is as under:- Ld. Advocate for the respondents Mr. Majmudar has forcefully argued that suit filed by the so-called plaintiffs are time barred and Ld. trial Court has rightly held that suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by law of limitations. It appears that Ex.57 has been executed in the year 1961, Ex.132 has been executed in the year 1964, sale deed executed Ex.114 in the year 1967 whereas plaintiff has filed the present suit in the year 1994. Both the plaintiffs was well aware of all the transactions but for the reasons best known to them they remained silent for pretty long time, hence, Ld. trial Court has rightly held that suit filed by the plaintiff is time barred, plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit within three years. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishwambhar others Vs. Laxminarayana (Dead) through LRs. trial Court has rightly held that suit filed by the plaintiff is time barred, plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit within three years. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishwambhar others Vs. Laxminarayana (Dead) through LRs. Another, (2001) AIR SC 2607 wherein it is observed as under:- Section 8(2)(3), Limitation Act, 1963, Article 60 - Alienation of property - Sale of minors property by natural guardian is not void ab initio but viodable at option of minor and amendment for setting aside sale in original plaint made after 3 years from filing of suit barred by limitation. Hence, Ld. trial Court has rightly held that suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law of limitations, hence, no further discussion is necessary in this respect. 16. In such circumstances referred to above, the First Appellate Court ultimately dismissed the appeal. 17. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court, the appellants - original plaintiffs are here before this Court with this present Second Appeal under Section-100 of the CPC. 18. The following questions have been formulated in the memo of the Second Appeal as substantial questions of law:- (A) Whether both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in holding that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation, despite the fact that no specific issue of limitation was framed? (B) Whether both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in interpreting the provisions of section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 31 of the Specific Relief’s Act in the facts and circumstances of the case? (C) Whether both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in not appreciating that the subsequent transfer in favour of the defendants were fraudulent and nullity in the eyes of law and considering the gift deed in favour of the plaintiffs? (D) Whether both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in not appreciating that the plaintiffs had perfect title over the suit land in question in view of the gift deed in their faovur, which is never challenged? (E) Whether both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in holding that the gift deed is not valid, despite the fact that it was never challenged by anybody? (E) Whether both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in holding that the gift deed is not valid, despite the fact that it was never challenged by anybody? (F) Whether both the lower appellate court below has erred in not appreciating the deposition of other plaintiffs i.e. heir of Budhabhai? (G) Whether both the courts below have committed substantial error of law by not correctly interpreting the documentary as well as oral evidence on record and by misreading the same? 19. Mr. Majmudar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants - original plaintiffs vehemently submitted that the lower Appellate Court committed a serious error in holding that the suit was time barred, more particularly, when no such issue was framed by the trial Court nor the parties had the occasion to lead any evidence in this regard. Mr. Majmudar submitted that the courts below committed a serious error in not believing the gift-deed and thereby, misinterpreting the provision of Section-122 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section-31 of the Specific Relief Act. According to Mr. Majmudar, the courts below ought to have decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs having acquired right, title and interest over the suit-land by virtue of a gift-deed of 1961 and should have believed the case put up by the defendants of having become owner of a land by virtue of a sale-deed of the year 1964. In such circumstances referred to above, according to Mr. Majmudar, this Second Appeal merits consideration. 20. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the two courts below committed any error in passing the impugned judgments and whether this second appeal involves any substantial question of law. 21. According to the plaintiffs, Hothabhai Mangalbhai was the owner of the suit-land. Hothabhai Mangalbhai got married with the mother of the plaintiffs. By a gift-deed dated 02/01/1961 Exh.57, the suit-land came to be transferred in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were put into possession of the suit-land way-back in the year 1961 on the basis of the gift-deed. According to the plaintiffs, thereafter Hothabhai could not have executed the sale-deed of the suit-land in favour of the defendants nos.1 to 3. This sale-deed is produced at Exh.132. The plaintiffs were put into possession of the suit-land way-back in the year 1961 on the basis of the gift-deed. According to the plaintiffs, thereafter Hothabhai could not have executed the sale-deed of the suit-land in favour of the defendants nos.1 to 3. This sale-deed is produced at Exh.132. It appears that thereafter one another sale-deed came to be executed Exh.131 dated 27/05/1964. It appears that the first sale-deed dated 28/05/1962, Exh.132 would indicate that Budhabhai Hothabhai transferred the land in favour of one Ambalal Madhavbhai. Ambalal Madhavbhai later re-transferred the very same land in favour of Budhabhai Hothabhai vide sale-deed dated 27/05/1964 Exh.131. 22. Over and above, the admission of the plaintiffs in their oral evidence which were taken note of by the courts below, it appears that the revenue records are absolutely silent so far as the gift-deed is concerned. At this stage, Mr. Majmudar the learned counsel appearing for the appellants were fairly submitted that the gift-deed never came to be acted upon. Both the courts below have taken note of the fact that the original gift-deed has not been produced. None of the two attesting witnesses in the gift-deed have been examined by the plaintiffs. Although the gift-deed may be a 30 years old document, yet as the original has not been produced. The courts below took the view that, Section-90 of the Evidence Act would not be applicable. The two courts below after having made reference of the Sections-122 and 123 of the Transfer of Properties Act, answered the issue no.1 in the negative. 23. At this stage let me reproduce some of the findings of the trial Court:- In the present case, the gift deed of Exh-57 executed in the names of plaintiffs is of 02/01/1961. Thereafter, the conditional sale deed of Exh-132 is of 25/08/1962. Whereas, the re-conveyance sale deed of Exh-131 is of 27/05/1964. The age of plaintiff No-2 Kanjibhai is shown 12 years in the gift deed of Exh-57. Hence, the plaintiff No-2 was minor at the time of execution of both conditional sale deed and re-conveyance sale deed executed in connection with the property in suit in 1962 and 1964 and when the property in suit was sold by Hothabhai to Fulabhai - father of the respondents No. 1 to 3 vide sale deed dated 12/08/1964 of Exh-166. Thereafter, the sale deed of Exh114 is of 14/11/1968. Thereafter, the sale deed of Exh114 is of 14/11/1968. At that time, the age of the plaintiff No-2 might be 19 years. Thus, it can be believed that at the time of execution of sale deed of Exh-114, the plaintiff might be adult. After attaining the adulthood, the plaintiff No-2 of the present case, has not done any procedure till today regarding the sale deed of Exh-131 and 132 executed by Hothabhai and Budhabhai. And he has instituted the suit regarding the sale deed of Exh-166 in 1994. Perusing all these facts along with the deposition of the plaintiff vide Exh-42, it appears that the plaintiff states in examination-in-chief that he has not executed any sale deed and the sale deeds which have been executed are illegal. He has stated in his cross-examination that Budhabhai used to deal all the matters on behalf of the plaintiff No-2. His family and family of Budhabhai is the same. When he was minor, Budhabhai was his guardian. He has no dispute regarding any act done by Budhabhai on his behalf. He has not raised any objection regarding the transactions carried out by Budhabhai in connection with the land. Budhabhai had all the rights to carry out transaction regarding the land received by way of gift and he does not have any dispute in that regard till today. Budhabhai and Hothabhai together sold the land in suit to Ambalal Madhavbhai. At that time, Ambalalbhai became occupant of the said property. Ambalalbhai again sold the land to Hothabhai. Thereby, the said land was purchased by him alone. He does not know Fulabhai. He does not know as to whether Fulabhai was cultivating the land in suit or not. He has also not seen Budhabhai and Hothabhai cultivating the said land. The name of plaintiff No-2 never existed as a farmer. Budhabhai died before about 10 years. He used to do labour work. Apart from the land in suit, Hothabhai had no other lands. According to the Land Ceiling Act, no any form was submitted by him or Budhabhai. As plaintiff No-2 and Budhabhai did not have any land, it was not required to submit such form. After 1985, the price of the land of the area Gotri increased. The Government acquired lands of some farmers in Gotri. According to the Land Ceiling Act, no any form was submitted by him or Budhabhai. As plaintiff No-2 and Budhabhai did not have any land, it was not required to submit such form. After 1985, the price of the land of the area Gotri increased. The Government acquired lands of some farmers in Gotri. The Government publishes notification at the time of acquiring the land and if anyone has objections, the same can be produced. He is not aware about the fact as to some part of the land in suit was acquired. He is not aware as to whether objection was raised by him or Budhabhai or who was paid the compensation. Further, the plaintiff No-2 admits that the land in suit is not possessed by him or by the heirs of Budhabhai. When the Builders used to come to inquire due to increase of price of land in suit, he and Budhabhai used to tell them that they do not have the land. At that time, the Builders used to tell them that we will find from the record. It is true that the Builder got the present suit instituted. It does not bear his signature or signature of Budhabhai. He does not sign he puts thumb impression. He has not visited the land in suit on any occasion. Thereby, perusing cross-examination of the aforesaid plaintiff No-2, it appears that the plaintiff No-2 had neither ever possessed the land in suit nor seen plaintiff No-1 or his father Hothabhai cultivating the land. Even the heirs of plaintiff No-1 Budhabhai do not posses the land in suit and some Builder has got the suit instituted through the plaintiffs. After completion of cross-examination of plaintiff No-2, the plaintiff submitted an application vide Exh-72 to reject the deposition of the plaintiff No-2 by stating that the plaintiff No-2 is deaf and ignorant and without understanding the questions asked by the defence lawyer, he had just nodded his head in reply to those questions. In this regard, the plaintiff has examined Dr. Gitaben Bhavinbhai vide Exh-80. And certificate showing complete deafness of the plaintiff No-2 produced vide Exh-72. My predecessor Judge has ordered to reject the application of Exh-72. Thereafter, the plaintiff has examined the son of plaintiff No-1 Rajubhai Budhabhai Solanki as a witness vide-92. He has supported the suit of plaintiff in his deposition. Gitaben Bhavinbhai vide Exh-80. And certificate showing complete deafness of the plaintiff No-2 produced vide Exh-72. My predecessor Judge has ordered to reject the application of Exh-72. Thereafter, the plaintiff has examined the son of plaintiff No-1 Rajubhai Budhabhai Solanki as a witness vide-92. He has supported the suit of plaintiff in his deposition. He has stated that he and plaintiff No-2 together cultivate the land in suit. He states in his cross-examination that he used to come to the Court with plaintiff No-2 and at the time of cross-examination of the plaintiff No-2, he used to sit out side the Court. On returning home, the plaintiff No-2 used to give him understanding about the deposition. On the basis of that, it clearly appears that being interested witness, he has deposed in favour of the plaintiff. In the present case, the respondent No-5 has deposed on oath vide Exh-108, wherein he has refused the suit of plaintiff. He has stated that he has purchased the property in suit from Fulabhai - the father of respondents No. 1 to 3 and the same is possessed by him and entry with regard the purchase of the property in suit is also posted in revenue record. The respondent No-5 states in his cross-examination that he deals in the business of automobile parts. These parts are sold in local as well in foreign markets. He stays in foreign country for 4-5 months. He has house and office in foreign. He has citizenship of Britain. He has to take visa to live in India. When the land in suit was purchased in 1964, he was studying in first year of the college. He does not know as to whether at the time of purchase of land in suit, title clearance certificate was obtained or not. He engages persons to cultivate his land. Therefore, he does not go to the said land. Total 12 Bighas of lands were situated around his land in suit but he does not remember their survey number. His cousin Rameshbhai Ambalal Patel who works in the factory looks after the farm in the present year. The land in suit is not cultivated this year. He does not remember as to when the said land was cultivated last. The hut constructed by the plaintiff on the land in suit was dismantled with the help of police. His cousin Rameshbhai Ambalal Patel who works in the factory looks after the farm in the present year. The land in suit is not cultivated this year. He does not remember as to when the said land was cultivated last. The hut constructed by the plaintiff on the land in suit was dismantled with the help of police. But, he does not know as to whether the hut was constructed by the plaintiff or not. In the present case, the plaintiff has produced entries of revenue record vide Exh-58 and 59. Perusing the same, it appears that as per the entry No-386, the name of Hothabhai Mangalbhai has been entered by heirship due to the death of Mangalbhai Becharbhai. The entry No. 646 is regarding sale of land in suit by Budhbhai and Hothabhai to Ambalal Madhavdas. As Ambalal Madhavbhai resold the land in suit, the name of Hothabhai Mangalbhai has been entered vide entry No. 1081. Hothabhai sold the land in suit to Fulabhai Mansukhbhai and entry No. 1130 is in that regard. The entry No. 1405 is produced vide Exh-59, wherein there is an entry that Fulabhai Mansukhbhai sold the land in suit to Parsottam Bakor and respondents No. 4 and 5. The heirship entry No. 2644 is made due to the death of Parsottam Bakor. The entry No. 4032 is a rectification entry. Considering all these entries, it does not appear that the name of plaintiffs have been entered in revenue record vide all these entries. It is mentioned in entry No. 646 that plaintiff No. 1 sold the land to Ambalalbhai. Perusing entry No. 1081 along with sale deed of Exh131, it appears that the name of Budhabhai has been missed out to be written in the said entry. The plaintiff has produced the extract of form No. 7 and 12 of the land in suit vide Exh-60. Perusing the same, it appears that it is regarding the period from 1972 to 2003-2004, wherein Purshottam Bakor and respondents No. 4 and 5 have been mentioned in both the columns of occupant and farmer. Whereas, no reference regarding plaintiff is found in any year. In the present case, the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff has submitted that the revenue record is for fiscal purpose. I agree with the same. But, the revenue record can be considered as an evidence of possession of some person. Whereas, no reference regarding plaintiff is found in any year. In the present case, the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff has submitted that the revenue record is for fiscal purpose. I agree with the same. But, the revenue record can be considered as an evidence of possession of some person. Perusing the revenue record produced in the present case along with cross-examination of the plaintiff, the names of Parshottam Bakor and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been found continue in the land in suit during the period of 1970 to 2003. The plaintiff has admitted the said fact in his cross-examination that the land in suit is not possessed by him. Hence, the aforesaid documentary evidence receives corroboration by the admission of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is proved that presently, the land in suit is not possessed by the plaintiff No-2 and it is possessed by the respondent No-4. It emerges that the possession of the land in suit has been received by the respondent No-4 from Fulabhai Mansukhbhai - the father of respondent No. 1 to 3 by way of registered sale deed. Likewise, Fulabhai Manshukhbhai received the same from the father of plaintiffs Hothabhai Mangalbhai by way of registered sale deed. Thus, the question arises as to whether the land in suit was ever possessed by the plaintiffs or not. No any clear documentary or oral evidence is produced by the plaintiff to prove the significant condition of the gift as to when the plaintiff received the possession of the land in suit and as to whether they accepted the gift or not. No any clear evidence is produced by the plaintiffs also to show that the land in suit is possessed by them. Hence, the plaintiffs have failed to prove the legality of the gift and therefore, the gift is not implemented, i.e. the plaintiff has failed to prove that gift is acted upon. The plaintiff has produced following judgments in support to his suit. 24. Article 60 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of three years for setting aside the transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward by the ward who has attained majority and the period is to be computed from the date when the ward attains majority. The plaintiff has produced following judgments in support to his suit. 24. Article 60 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of three years for setting aside the transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward by the ward who has attained majority and the period is to be computed from the date when the ward attains majority. Since the limitation started running from the date when the plaintiffs attained majority, the prescribed period had elapsed by the date of presentation of the plaint. This aspect has been dealt with by the trial Court. The trial Court did record a finding that the suit was time barred, of-course, there is no issue framed by the trial Court in this regard. 25. Mr. Majmudar laid much emphasis on the fact that in the absence of a specific issue with regard to the limitation, the First Appellate Court could not have taken the view that the suit was time barred. If at all the appellate court wanted to say something on the issue of limitation, then the appellate Court ought to have invoked the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 of the CPC. According to him, the appellate Court could have framed the issue whether the suit was time barred by law of limitation and the said issue could have been referred to the trial Court. 26. I am not impressed by the submissions of Mr. Majmudar keeping in mind Order 41 Rule 24 of the CPC. Order 41 Rule 24 CPC reads as under:- Order 41 Rule 24 - Where evidence on record sufficient Appellate Court may determine case finally.- Where the evidence upon the record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the Appellate Court may, after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds. 27. Section-3(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is as under:- 3. Bar of Limitation. - [1] Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. 28. 27. Section-3(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is as under:- 3. Bar of Limitation. - [1] Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. 28. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions make it clear that the Court is obliged to consider the question of limitation even if no objection in that regard is taken. In the instant case, although the trial Court did not frame any issue of limitation, yet recorded a finding that the suit was time barred and the appellate Court also considered the issue of limitation and took the view that the suit was time barred. 29. In the over all view of the matter, I am convinced that no case is made out for admission of this Second Appeal under Section-100 of the CPC on any of the substantial question of law formulated in the memo of appeal. 30. In the result, this Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.