K.N. Saikia, J. - (1.)THIS plaintiff's second appeal is from the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Manipur allowing the appeal of the defendant and dismissing the plaintiff's suit.
(2.)THE plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 22 of 1976 for declaration of his title to the suit land measuring 2 (two) Sangams of agricultural land under Patta No. 64/1213 (N) B.T. on purchase from the defendant -respondent at a consideration of Rs. 1000/ -by a registered sale deed dt. 12 -5 -71" with delivery of possession and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his rightful possession thereof. He averred that since the purchase he had been in possession of the suit land paying its land revenue and he applied for mutation which was refused on objection by the defendant who thus asserted hostile title and interfered with his possession.
The defendant in her written statement denied the averments of the plaintiff that she sold the land with delivery of possession and that the plaintiff paid the revenue, but she admitted that she objected to the plaintiff's application for mutation. She also stated, inter alia, that her husband, late Khangembam Baikul Singh, was the original owner and pattadar of a lou under Patta No. 64/1213 B.T. measuring about 7 Sangams of which the suit land was a part; that she and her daughter, Inakhunbi Devi, had been possessing the whole lou including the suit land through their tenant since the death of her husband about 15/16 years ago; that being in need of money she mortgaged the suit land to the plaintiff in 1971 for Rs. 1000/ -agreeing to pay 9 pots of paddy per year as interest; and that when she wanted to redeem the mortgage the plaintiff did not agree.

(3.)ON the pleadings the trial Court framed as many as 13 issues including whether the registered deed was of sale or of mortgage; whether the plaintiff acquired right by purchase; whether the plaintiff or the defendant was in possession of the suit land; whether the suit land was inherited by the defendant and her daughter from the defendant's husband; and whether the suit was hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act
;