( 1 ) PARTIES are referred with respect to their ranking as held in the lower Court in the course of this judgment for the purpose of convenience.

( 2 ) THIS Regular First Appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff filed under Section 96 of the C. P. C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13. 9. 1976 passed in O. S. No. 20/1975 on the file of the erstwhile Civil Judge, Bijapur, wherein the learned Civil Judge had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and the relief of permanent injunction, challenging the legality and validity of the judgment impugned.

( 3 ) AT the outset, it should be mentioned that this Court, on 24/ 25. 2. 1988, had disposed of the appeal decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the first defendant had carried the appeal to the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8731/1994 arising out of s. L. P. (C) No. 6149/1988, and the Apex Court, vide its judgment dated 20. 3. 2002, had set aside the judgment and decree of this Court by allowing the appeal and had remanded the case to this Court for hearing the matter in the light of the observations made therein. Accordingly, this Court has again heard the arguments of both sides.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for appellant, Sri Ajit Gunjal, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is illegal and invalid. The learned Civil judge had not appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective and the same has resulted miscarriage of justice. The learned Counsel also contended that the plaintiff has successfully proved the fraud played upon her by the defendants and on the contrary, the first defendant had not even got himself examined and thereby the best evidence had been shut out. He also contended that the first defendant had not produced the original sale deed to show that there had been an endorsement regarding payment of sale consideration before the Sub-Registrar and in view of the provisions of Section 59 (c) of the Registration Act, the case putforth by the first defendant is totally unacceptable. He also contended that the suit has been filed within three years of the plaintiff coming to know of the fraud played by the defendants, and there were no compelling reasons for the plaintiff to sell the suit property as now alleged. He relied upon a decision reported in A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 956 in support of his contentions. Placing reliance on the ratio laid down in the said decision, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

( 5 ) ON the contrary, Sri Gachina Mutt, the learned Counsel for first defendant strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is legal and valid. The learned Civil Judge, after proper appreciation of the evidence on record, had arrived at the right conclusion. The material on record also goes to show that the plaintiff had utterly failed to prove the plea of fraud set up by her. The evidence placed on record by the plaintiff is highly insufficient and unacceptable. On the contrary, the material on record clearly shows that the plaintiff and her husband - second defendant, had been represented by a common advocate in O. S. No. 251/1973 filed by the first defendant and this itself shows the fraud and collusion between the husband and wife and as such no reliance could be paced on the case putforth by the plaintiff. The material on record also goes to show that the instant suit is a collusive suit between the husband and wife, designed only to defraud the first defendant, who, after purchase of the land, had made substantial improvement. The learned Counsel also contended that there had been family necessity and compelling circumstances for the plaintiff to sell the suit property in favour of the first defendant. The learned Counsel also contended that the suit of the plaintiff is totally barred by limitation and the material on record also goes to show that the fir