1. The appellants/defendants, who lost in both the courts below have preferred this second appeal.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under - The subject matter of the suit is 7 acres out of gat No.91 of village Sawargaon Teli in Buldhana district. Defendant no.1 is the mother of defendant nos.2 to 5. Defendant no.1's husband and defendants no.2 to 5's father had sold the said field to the plaintiff on 7/1/1955. The said field has been in possession of the plaintiff since then continuously. However, in the year 1986-87, the defendants illegally took possession of the suit field from the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted suit for possession and damages.

3. The defendants resisted the suit and denied that they have forcibly taken possession of the suit field. Their contention is that Bhanudas . the deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs.500/- from the plaintiff. He could not repay that amount. Since he could not repay the amount of Rs.500/-, the plaintiff added Rs.1000/- towards interest and obtained a nominal sale-deed in his favour on 7/1/1955. The said sale-deed was executed by said Bhanudas by way of security. Further it is the contention of the defendants that it was agreed that the sale-deed was never to be acted upon. Loan was agreed to be paid at the interest at savai rate. It was further agreed that as soon as the amount is repaid, the plaintiff would reconvey the field to Bhanudas. The defendants several times requested the plaintiff to convey the field to them but plaintiff avoided to do so. Further the defendants' contention is that they repaid sum of Rs.1850/- to the plaintiff in the year 1956 itself. The plaintiff refused to execute the sale-deed i.e. reconveyance and said that since amount has already been paid and since the defendants are already in possession, there was no problem even if reconveyance-deed is not executed. The defendants also contended that they are in adverse possession of the suit property.

4. On these pleadings, the learned judge of the trial court framed issues. He found that the transaction between the plaintiff and defendants is not of money lending. That the plaintiff was dispossessed and he was in possession of the suit property since

955. There was no agreement of reconveyance and holding so, he dismissed the suit. The appellate court also upheld the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, this appeal has been preferred.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellantsdefendants and respondent-plaintiff. This appeal was admitted by passing the following order. .Admit as substantial question of law as raised in memo of appeal arise for consideration. Ad interim stay as prayed in C.A.No.4-A of 1996. There are as many as 10 grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. The substantial questions of law that could be formulated are as under -

i) Whether suit simplicitor for possession without declaration is tenable ?

ii) Whether the transaction in suit was of money lending and therefore the sale-deed was never agreed to be acted upon ?

iii) Was the suit filed within limitation ?

6. The learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submitted that the suit simplicitor for possession was not maintenable and plaintiff should have also sought relief for declaration. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has no substance. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner on the basis of the sale-deed of 1955 and he was dispossessed. Since the plaintiff claims to be owner and was dispossessed, he can certainly sue for possession on the basis of title. The suit simplicitor for possession as such is maintenable but suit simplicitor for declaration may not be maintenable where further relief may be available to the party.

7. The plaintiff claims that he had purchased suit field from the husband of defendant no.1 by name Bhanudas by sale-deed dated 7/1/1955. The defendants raised a plea that it was a loan transactio