1. This is an appeal by original defendant challenging the concurrent judgments recorded by the Courts below.

2. Plaintiff - Respondent herein instituted Regular Civil Suit No.181/89 claiming redemption of mortgage and recovery of possession as well as reconveyance of the document. Plaintiff is the original owner of the property bearing S.No.19/2 and 19/11, now consolidated in G.No.407, admeasuring 25 ares and 32 ares respectively situate at village Kanad. Plaintiff was in need of Rs.5000/-. As such, he approached the defendant for advancement of amount. Defendant agreed to advance the amount, however, on execution of a conditional registered sale deed by the plaintiff in his favour. Plaintiff, as such, executed a conditional sale deed and it was agreed that after completion of five years, plaintiff would pay Rs.5000/- to the defendant and defendant would reconvey the property in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that he had paid an amount of Rs.3175/- to the brother of the defendant and presented Regular Civil Suit No.94/86 against the defendant for reconveyance. But the said suit was withdrawn as it was premature. Plaintiff was ready to pay Rs.5000/- to the defendant and asked the defendant to reconvey the property. However, defendant refused to do so. Hence plaintiff instituted instant suit requesting the defendant for redemption of mortgage as well as for execution of reconveyance deed and delivery of the property in favour of the plaintiff.

3. In response to the suit summons, defendant appeared and resisted the suit. Defendant admitted execution of the document dated 04.05.1983. However, he contended that period prescribed under the document came to an end on 04.05.1988. Thereafter defendant asked the plaintiff to pay back the amount and get the reconveyance deed executed. However, plaintiff was not in a position to repay the amount. It is, therefore, contended that in view of the terms recorded in the said document, conditional sale has to be treated as absolute one on expiration of the period prescribed in the document. Defendant, as such, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court, after considering pleadings of the parties, framed as many as four issues and after receiving evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that plaintiff has established his case and as such granted decree in favour of the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 21.01.1993. The trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has refused to deliver the property in his favour so also the trial Court has recorded a finding in affirmative in respect of the issue, as to "whether the plaintiff was and is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract". The trial Court also recorded a finding that the plaintiff is entitled to redemption as claimed and as such decreed the suit.

5. Defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.12/1993 which came to be heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Parbhani, who was pleased to dismiss the same by his judgment and decree dated 04.12.2000. The only point canvassed before the first appellate Court was regarding drawing of a preliminary decree in respect of redemption of mortgage.

6. It was urged by the appellant before the first appellate Court that the trial Court should have passed a preliminary decree for redemption of mortgage and the decree passed by the trial Court does not confirm to characteristics of preliminary decree for redemption. The only request that was made before the first appellate Court by the appellant was to remit the matter back to the trial Court for passing appropriate preliminary decree. The first appellate Court found favour with the appellant. However, in view of the powers invested with first appellate Court, the Court passed appropriate preliminary decree by allowing the appeal partly. Defendant has challenged concurrent judgm