- (1.)IN this appeal only question which calls for consideration is whether the plaintiff's suit was in limitation.
(2.)THE facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are as under :
The plaintiff is the owner of agricultural land. By sale deed dated 31st July, 1969 the plaintiff sold the suit land to the defendant no.1. On the same day there was another sale deed in respect of house property. However, in the present appeal, the said house property is not involved. The plaintiff alleged that on the same day i.e. on 31st July, 1969 there was an oral agreement between him and defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 agreed to reconvey the suit land to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff stated that the defendant no.1 is a money lender doing business without licence. He used to obtain the document of sale of immovable properties. He used to enter into an oral agreement for reconveyance and the original owner used to continue in the suit property till the payments are made. The defendant no.1 used to recover the interest year to year. As per the plaintiff in the present case even though there was a sale it was a loan transaction, he continued to be in possession and he used to pay the interest. The plaintiff alleged that the agricultural land is worth Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. In the year 1969 as he was in need of Rs.10,000/- he entered into sale deed in respect of agricultural land for Rs.7000/- and in respect of house property for Rs.3000/-. The plaintiff further state that in the year 1972-73 due to famine, drought in the said area he was unable to pay the said interest. The plaintiff made a request for waiver of the interest for that year. However, defendant declined to do so. As the plaintiff could not pay the amount, the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed by defendant no.1 and 2. The defendant no.1 was the Sarpanch of the village during the said time and was very influential person. Hence, the plaintiff could not get assistance from any authority. The plaintiff has further alleged that on 22nd November, 1976 the defendant no.1 has executed sale deed in favour of defendant no.2. However, the same is to avoid execution of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff thus prayed for specific performance of reconveyance. As per the plaintiff's case the cause of action arose when there was a sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 by the defendant no.1 on 22nd November, 1976.

(3.)THE claim is resisted by the defendants. The defendant no.1 denied the plaintiff's case. He stated that there is a sale out and there is no agreement for reconveyance.