AR.LAKSHMANAN, J. - (1.) THE above appeal was filed by the unsuccessful defendants against the final judgment and order dated 06.08.1998 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 500 of 1989 whereby the High Court allowed the Second Appeal filed by the respondent/Plaintiff.
(2.) THE short facts of the case are as follows: The respondent/plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of Mst. Hasrat Bi after obtaining a loan of Rs. 400/- and also executed an agreement stating therein that in case she returns Rs. 400/- to Mst. Hasrat Bi within 3 years, property shall be reconveyed to him. The respondent failed to repay the loan within the stipulated period of 3 years. Therefore, Mst. Hasrat Bi got her name recorded in the revenue and sold the property to the appellant Ramlal Shyamlal and one Pyarelal by a registered sale deed for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. According to the appellants, they came in possession of the property and are cultivating since then. Respondent No. 1 - Phagua filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 01.12.1965 executed by her in favour of Mst. Hasrat Bi was only a nominal sale and she continues to be the owner of the suit land. She also prayed for possession of the suit land. The trial Court held that the registered sale deed dated 01.12.1965 has not been executed nominally and accordingly the trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff/respondent herein tiled first appeal before the District Judge who also dismissed the appeal. The respondent filed second appeal before the High Court contending that the Courts below have failed to consider an admission by respondent No. 8/defendant No. 8 - Mst. Hasrat Bi that what was given was a loan committed an error in treating the document dated 01.12.1965 as a sale and not a nominal sale. It was submitted that the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below are erroneous in law and facts and deserve to be set aside.
(3.) THE High Court admitted the appeal and framed the following substantial question of law: Whether the Court below was right in holding that the sale deed dated 01.12.1965 conveyed the title to respondent No. 8 ;