JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The plaintiffs' suit bearing Civil Suit No. 96/1 of 1992, claiming therein, the making, of, a declaratory relief, for annulment of order of mutation No.128 of 30.01.1995 Vikramt Samvat, and, also claiming, the, further relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, became decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried thereagainst, by the aggrieved defendants, before the First Appellate Court, the latter Court affirmed the judgement and decree, as, pronounced by the learned Civil Court, upon, the afore civil suit No. 96/1 of 1992. The defendants become aggrieved therefrom, and, for seeking annulment thereof, they cast the extant regular second appeal before this Court. 2. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 4.8.2004, hence, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the defendants-appellants can raise the point of limitation after having given up such a plea before the trial Court and not having raised before the first Appellate Court? 2. If question No.1 is decided in the affirmative, whether the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents was barred by time? 3. Whether the findings recorded by both the learned Courts are contrary to the pleadings set up by the plaintiffs and a new case could not have been created in favour of the plaintiffs by the court below? 4. Whether the respective claims of the parties regarding their right of inheritance of late Smt. Basanti was required to be determined in accordance with the principle of Old Hindu Law or those were to be determined in consonance with the Wazib-ul-Arz, Ex. D-2 by which admittedly the parties were governed? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 4: 3. Before proceeding to answer the afore extracted substantial questions of law, it is imperative to set forth the facts relevant to the extant lis. In the afore endeavour, it is also important, to extract, the undisputed Sajra Nasab or Pedigree table:- Gurubakasha Gehala Bhola Kahana Gangu Hazari Guriya Attra Sukhu Chandu (died issueless) Roda Sunder Tulshi Munshi Narata Wd. Before proceeding to answer the afore extracted substantial questions of law, it is imperative to set forth the facts relevant to the extant lis. In the afore endeavour, it is also important, to extract, the undisputed Sajra Nasab or Pedigree table:- Gurubakasha Gehala Bhola Kahana Gangu Hazari Guriya Attra Sukhu Chandu (died issueless) Roda Sunder Tulshi Munshi Narata Wd. Basanti (as limited owner) Bakshish Singh Radhey Shayam Ravi Shankar Chhotu Ram Somnath Shiv Ram Waryam Singh Pola Singh Kala Singh Bant Singh Deep Singh Bhag Singh Amar Chand Ram Lok Ramji Dass From a perusal thereof, it becomes unfolded, that, one Chandu died living behind his widow one Basanti. Since, the demise of Basanti occurred prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, hence, she became a limited owner of the suit land, as, left behind by her pre- deceased husband, one Chandu. The further effect of the afore surviving widow of one Chandu, holding, only a limited or a restricted right, in the estate, succeeded by her, from her pre-deceased husband, is that, on her demise, her estate was to revert, to the apposite reversioner(s). The apposite reversioner(s), as, apparent, on a reading, of the afore extracted pedigree table, are one Sukhu, Goriya and Attra. Through, the contested order of mutation bearing No.128 of 31.01.1995 Vikrami Samvat, all the afore, inasmuch, as, Goriya, Attra, and, Sukhu became conferred, in proportion to their entitlements therein, titles as owners, in the undivided suit property/land. However, the plaintiffs, contended that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants No.1 to 7, namely one Attra, was not alive, at the time, of demise of Basanti, hence, no valid vestment of title, through, the afore order of mutation, could be made in his favour, and, also averred that the thereafter made revenue entries in favour of co-defendants No.4 to 7, are, legally fallacious. The contest to the validity, of the afore order of mutation, was made on the ground, that only Goriya and Sukhu, were the surviving nearest collateral(s) or reversioner(s) of Chandu, the pre-deceased husband of Basanti. Likewise co-defendants No. 1, 2 and 3, who are sons of Attra, are also averred in the plaint, to be, not holding any right, title or interest in the suit property, as, their predecessor-in-interest Attra, was not alive, at the time of the order of mutation, being made in his favour, on demise of one Basanti. Likewise co-defendants No. 1, 2 and 3, who are sons of Attra, are also averred in the plaint, to be, not holding any right, title or interest in the suit property, as, their predecessor-in-interest Attra, was not alive, at the time of the order of mutation, being made in his favour, on demise of one Basanti. The cause of action to institute, the suit is averred in the plaint, to, arise on 17.5.1992, whereat the defendants, declined to admit the plaintiffs, as co-owners or co-sharers in possession of 30 bighas 10 biswas of land, rather the defendants No.1 to 8 openly declared that they will dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. 4. Moreover, the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants No.1 to 8, from, interfering with the title of the plaintiffs, in the suit land, is also prayed, to be pronounced. 5. In the written statement instituted, to the plaint, by defendants No. 1 to 8, the latter denied, the afore averments carried in the plaint, with, respect to the validity, of, the afore mutation, as became, attested on the demise of one Basanti, the surviving widow of one Chandu. It is also contended in the written statement, that not only Goriya, son of Kahan Singh, one Sukhu son of Kahan Singh, and, one Attra son of Kahan Singh, were the nearest collateral(s) or reversioner(s) of one Chandu, the pre-deceased husband, of, one Basanti, rather one Roda, the predecessor-in-interest of co-defendants No. 3 to 8, was also, the nearest collateral, or reversioner(s), of, the predeceased husband, of, one Basanti. 6. The setting forth of the afore relevant facts, does make it incumbent, upon, this court, to also determine whether the institution of the suit, in the year 1992, by the plaintiffs, hence for setting aside the order of mutation made in the month of Savan, 1995 Vikrami Samvat, makes it time barred or the bar of the limitation hits the plaintiffs' suit. Though, the learned trial Court, had with respect to the afore, struck issue No. 4, yet in the findings made thereon, the learned trial Court, did not, render any reasoned finding(s), rather stated that the afore issue is not pressed. 7. Since, the learned counsel for the appellants, has, contended that substantial questions of law No.1 and 2, require answers being meted thereon(s), hence, this Court proceeds to render answer(s) thereon. 8. 7. Since, the learned counsel for the appellants, has, contended that substantial questions of law No.1 and 2, require answers being meted thereon(s), hence, this Court proceeds to render answer(s) thereon. 8. It is a settled proposition of law, made, in a verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case titled as State of Gujarat vs. Kothari and associates, reported in (2016)14 SCC 761 , (i) that the learned trial Court, is bound to, irrespective of the counsel concerned not pressing for reasoned findings being rendered, on the struck issue, of, limitation, hence make reasoned findings thereon, (ii) and, it is also expostulated therein, that even if the afore reasoned findings are not rendered on the issue of limitation, either by the learned trial Court, nor later by the first Appellate Court, nonetheless, it is open for the counsel concerned, to ask for reasoned findings, being rendered thereon(s). The relevant paragraph No.8 thereof, is, extracted hereinafter:- “8. Section 3 of the Limitation Act explicitly states that:- “3. Bar of limitation.-......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.” It is thus incumbent upon the Court to satisfy itself that the suit is not barred by limitation, regardless of whether such a plea has been raised by the parties. In Union of India vs. British India Corporation Ltd (2003) 9 SCC 505 , it has been opined that “7.........the question of limitation is a mandate to the forum and, irrespective of the fact whether it was raised or not, the forum must consider and apply it, if there is no dispute on facts.” It is thus irrelevant that the Appellant State had not raised the issue of limitation before the Trial Court. A duty was cast on the Court to consider this aspect of law, even on its own initiative, and since it failed to do so, the Appellant State was competent to raise this legal question in appeal or indeed even in any successive appeal. Close to a century ago, in Lachhmi Sewak Sahu vs. Ram Rup Sahu AIR 1944 Privy Council 24, it has been held that the point of limitation is available to be urged even in the Court of last resort. Close to a century ago, in Lachhmi Sewak Sahu vs. Ram Rup Sahu AIR 1944 Privy Council 24, it has been held that the point of limitation is available to be urged even in the Court of last resort. Furthermore, we are not confronted with a situation where the plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, or where additional evidence needs to be adduced. The submissions of Learned Counsel for the Respondent to the effect that the Appellant is foreclosed and precluded from urging the plea of the bar of limitation are meretricious and are rejected. We shall now proceed to consider whether the suit was in fact barred by limitation.” Furthermore, in a verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case titled as Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. Praveen D. Desai (dead) through legal representatives and others, reported in (2015)6 SCC 412 , a judicial view stands expostulated (i) that the plea of limitation or a plea of res judicata is a plea of law, devolving upon the jurisdiction of the court which tries the suit, and, whereins, it is raised, (ii) thereupon, it becomes mandatory for the learned trial Court, to make reasoned findings thereon, as, in the event of findings rather against the plaintiff, being rendered thereon, would oust the jurisdiction, of, the Civil Court concerned, to, try the civil suit. Consequently, the learned counsel, appearing for the appellants contends, that want of returning of findings , on, the issue of limitation by the learned trial Court, breaches the afore made dicktat, occurring in the verdict supra, and, asks that reasoned findings, be rendered thereon, and, further prays that the plaintiffs' suit be declared, to be barred by limitation. 9. In addition, the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, has also contended with much vigour, through his placing reliance, upon, a verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case titled as Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society vs. Balwan Singh and others, reported in (2015)7 SCC 373 , the relevant paragraph No. 32 whereof, stands extracted hereinafter:- “32. 9. In addition, the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, has also contended with much vigour, through his placing reliance, upon, a verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case titled as Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society vs. Balwan Singh and others, reported in (2015)7 SCC 373 , the relevant paragraph No. 32 whereof, stands extracted hereinafter:- “32. Generally, admissions of fact made by a counsel are binding upon their principals as long as they are unequivocal; where, however, doubt exists as to a purported admission, the court should be wary to accept such admissions until and unless the counsel or the advocate is authorised by his principal to make such admissions. Furthermore, a client is not bound by a statement or admission which he or his lawyer was not authorised to make. A lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed. We hasten to add neither the client or the court is bound by the lawyer's statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client's instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client. We may add that in some cases, lawyers can make decisions without consulting the client. While in others, the decision is reserved of the client. It is often said that the lawyer can make decisions as a tactics without consulting the client, while the client has a right to make decisions that can affect his rights.” (i) that concessions, as, made by the counsel for the defendants, before the learned trial Court, that the issue of limitation, is not pressed, rather is not binding upon the litigant(s) concerned, and, that hence reasoned findings, be returned thereon, by this Court. However, the reliance placed, upon the verdict supra, by the counsel, for the defendants/appellants, cannot be fully carried forward, as, there is no evidence on record, demonstrating that in the counsel for the defendants, making a submission, that the issue of limitation is not pressed, he had not either obtained or received instructions, from his clients. 10. However, the reliance placed, upon the verdict supra, by the counsel, for the defendants/appellants, cannot be fully carried forward, as, there is no evidence on record, demonstrating that in the counsel for the defendants, making a submission, that the issue of limitation is not pressed, he had not either obtained or received instructions, from his clients. 10. Be that as it may, it is still important, for this court, to proceed to determine, the legal weight, of the afore made submission, before this Court, by the learned counsel, appearing for the defendants/aggrieved appellants. 11. This court is bound to revere the verdicts supra, pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the contested factum of the plaintiffs' suit, being barred by limitation or it not being hit by delay, does involve, an exercise being done by this Court, whether, the plaintiffs, were entitled to the relief claimed in the suit. If the order of mutation bearing No.128 of 30.01.1995 Vikrami Samvat, was illegally or invalidly attested, (I) thereupon, it would acquire, at its inception, the vice of it being nonest, and, hence no bar of limitation, would hit the plaintiffs' suit, (ii) rather the period of limitation would commence from the date of proven interferences, being made by the defendants concerned in the indefeasible rights, titles and interest, of, the plaintiffs in the undivided suit property or from the date of acquisition of knowledge about the invalidity of the impugned order, of, mutation.. 12. Necessarily, hence, if this Court determines that the attestation of mutation No.128 of 30.01.1995 Vikrami Samvat, is, made in transgression of the indefeasible right(s), title(s) or interest(s) of the plaintiffs in the suit land, and, as, may emerge from an invalid order of mutation being made, vis-a-vis, one Attra, the predecessors in interest of co-defendants No.1 to 7, (I) thereupon, this Court would be constrained to answer substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, and, against the defendants. 13. In determining the afore, as, aforestated, an allusion to the pedgree table/Sajra Nasab is important. 13. In determining the afore, as, aforestated, an allusion to the pedgree table/Sajra Nasab is important. A perusal thereof, does disclose, that, on the demise of one Basanti, the surviving widow of one Chandu, and, who was holding only a limited, and, a restricted interest, in the estate, derived by her, from her pre-deceased husband, rather the reversioner(s) of her pre-deceased husband, one Attra, one Sukhu, and, one Goriya, became entitled, to seek, an order of mutation. 14. Be that as it may, though the plaintiffs, contest that Attra, the predecessor in interest of co-defendants No.1 to 7 was not alive, at the time, when the order of mutation was made, and, yet PW-1, one of the plaintiffs, who stepped into the witness box as PW-1, has not made any echoings in tandem therewith, even in his examination-in-chief or in his cross-examination. Contrarily, he acquiesces, to an affirmative suggestion, put to him, by the learned counsel for the defendant, rather during the course, of, his being subjected, to, cross-examination, that the contested order of mutation, was made in “Jalsa-ae-Aam. He, in his examination-inchief, does not, make any echoing, in respect of the averments cast, in the plaint, that the cause of action accrued in the year 1992, and, it being comprised in any purported threats being made by the defendants, vis-avis, the right, title or interest, over the suit land, of, the plaintiffs. The tentative effects thereof, are, that the averment made, in the plaint that Attra, the common predecessor-in-interest of co-defendants No.1 to 8, was not alive, at the time, of making of the contested order of mutation, remaining unproven, and, unsubstantiated, (i) and, also the further averment made in the plaint, that the cause, of, action arose in the year 1992, when the defendants started making interferences in the suit land, in denial, to the rights, titles or interests of the plaintiffs also likewise remains uncorroborated, and, unsubstantiated. Further tentative sequel thereof, is that, the bar of limitation, did hit, the plaintiff's suit, and, fortified strength, to the afore inference, is garnered from obviously the afore made inference, that Attra stands not proven to be not alive, at the time, of, making of the contested order of mutation. Further tentative sequel thereof, is that, the bar of limitation, did hit, the plaintiff's suit, and, fortified strength, to the afore inference, is garnered from obviously the afore made inference, that Attra stands not proven to be not alive, at the time, of, making of the contested order of mutation. The further consequence thereof is that when it is not disputed, that Attra, was one amongst the reversioner(s) of Chandu, the predeceased husband of Basanti, hence, he alongwith one Sukhu, and, one Goriya, was tentatively validly entitled to receive, an order, of, mutation, upon, demise of Basanti. 15. Be that as it may, even if, the afore relevant averments are not substantiated, from the deposition of PW-1, yet from the cross-examination of DW-1, the plaintiffs could seek an answer, from him, with respect to Attra, being not alive, at the time of attestation, of, an order of mutation, in favour, of one Goriya, one Sukhu, and, one Attra. A reading of the cross-examination of DW-1, discloses that an affirmative suggestion, was put to him, suggestion whereof, become couched in the phraseology, that at the time of demise of Basanti, hence, Sukhu and Goriya were alive, and, that Attra was not alive. To the afore suggestion meted to DW-1, an affirmative answer thereto was made by DW-1. The affirmative answer, made by DW-1 to the afore suggestion, does render eclipsed, any lack of substantiation, by the plaintiffs, with respect to Attra not being alive, at the time of attestation, of, the contentious order of mutation. Furthermore, the effect thereof, is that the hereinabove made tentative inference, that the defendants, through their predecessor-in-interest one Attra, were entitled to succeed, to the estate of Basanti, given Attra, their common predecessor-in-interest, being alive, at the relevant time, also becoming completely waned. In sequel, it is held that there was lack of entitlement of One Attra to succeed to the estate of one Basanti, as, he was not alive, at the time, of, attestation of the contentious order of mutation, hence it does render, the order of mutation to be invalidly made, and, it is also from its inception, acquires a vice of its being nonest, and,hence it is challengeable at any stage, inasmuch, as, from the date of acquisition of knowledge qua its voidness. 16. 16. The defendants, could defeat, the afore inference, from theirs adducing cogent evidence, that, at the time, of, demise of Basanti, One Roda son of Attra was alive. Moreover, even the afore evidence, is, amiss, thereupon, the order of mutation acquires a vice of completest voidness, it being made, vis-a-vis, a dead person. 17. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court, being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court, have not, excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, all the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, and, against the appellants/defendants. 18. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgements and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are maintained and affirmed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.