Law:

Section:

By this common judgment I intend to dispose of these two appeals as he two tower Courts also have passed common judgments in the two suits.

Briefly the facts are that the present respondents Nos.1 and 2 owned agricultural lands in Deh Jamma Taluka Shahdadpur, District Sanghar admeasuring 17-32 acres and 37-12 acres respectively. The present appellant claims to have purchased the same from the respondents through an agreement of sale executed at Karachi on 1-4-1966 for a total valuable consideration of Rs.49,600. The said agreement of sale was executed by the present respondent No.1 for himself and on behalf of respondent No.2 as his attorney. It is alleged that at the time of execution of sale agreement an amount of Rs.30,240 was paid to the respondent No.1 towards the sale price, of this amount the entire amount of Rs.16,030 being price of land of respondent No.1 was paid while the amount of Rs.14,210 paid towards the price of the land of respondent No.2 and the remaining amount of Rs.19,360 was to be paid by the present appellant which he had deposited in Court in spite of his claim that he had made some payment during this period. The present respondents, thereafter filed Suits Nos. 467 and 438 of 1969 respectively for cancellation of sale agreement, dated 1-4-1966 against the present appellant on the ground of having obtained the same through fraud. These suits were ultimately withdrawn by the respondents with the permission to file fresh suits on 12-8-1971. In the meanwhile, the present appellant filed suit for specific performance of the contract being Suit No.2345 of 1971 against both the respondents wherein he claimed that the said land as mentioned above was sold to him by the respondents vide referred to sale agreement, dated 1-4-1966 for valuable consideration. The appellant further contended that the amount of Rs.30,240 was paid in advance and thereafter he had been making payments to and on behalf of the respondents and that in consequence of the sale agreement the possession of this land was handed over to him by way of part performance of the contract. The respondent No.2 filed his written statement whereby he contended that he had never given any power of attorney to the respondent No.1 authorising him to sale his land. He had submitted that he (respondent No.2) and their mother had executed one special power of attorney in favour of the respondent No.1 authorising him to act on their behalf before the Settlement Authorities in order to get their claims settled for the land left by them in India. However, subsequently the present respondent No.2 also filed a suit being Suit No.2086 of 1975 wherein he prayed for declaration, permanent injunction, possession and mesne profit. The present appellant and respondcnt No.1 were arrayed as defendants in that suit. The two suits were consolidated and the learned trial Court was pleased to settlc the following issues:

(i)??????? is the suit within limitation?