This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.08.1989 passed by the District Judge thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 30.04.1984. The appellant is an unsuccessful plaintiff who has filed regular civil suit no.262/1979 against the respondent (defendant) for partition and separate possession of one half share in the suit property based on the title.

2. The brief facts of case are as follows:

A piece of land was purchased by the respondent (defendant) along with Pramilabai Patil on 16.4.1962 jointly. Thus, defendant being a co-owner, owns one half share in the said piece of land. This one half share is the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time of purchase of the said property, he has contributed Rs.2,500/- i.e. 50% of the price and thus, he has one fourth share in the entire piece of land. It is the case of the plaintiff that though the sale-deed was executed in the name of the defendant alone, he had handed over the possession of the half portion of the suit land to the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the defendant are co-sharers in the suit property. Subsequently, on 25.3.1968, the appellant i.e. the plaintiff purchased one half share of the suit land from the defendant by registered sale deed for Rs.1000/-. The plaintiff and the defendant both were having business transactions in leather business and as they were on good terms and the defendant used to give the share of the crop in the suit land to the plaintiff till 1974, the plaintiff did not ask for the partition. However, said relations got strained and when demanded, the defendant failed to hand over one half share of the suit property. The appellant was constrained to file a suit for partition and possession of one half share of the suit land. The trial court dismissed the suit and the judgment was confirmed by the first appeal court.

3. The trial court held that the sale-deed dated 25.03.1968 was without consideration and it was, in fact, executed as security therefore the suit was dismissed. The first appeal court upheld the judgment and order passed by the trial court hence this second appeal.

4. The second appeal was admitted on 10.10.1990 and the ground nos. 1 to 3 and 7 are considered as substantial questions of law, which reads as under:

1. The substantial question of law which arises for determination in this second appeal is whether the transaction dated 25.3.1968 was an absolute sale or was merely a security for the advance paid by the appellant?

2. The substantial question of law which arises for determination in this second appeal is whether in the absence of any evidence to show as to what was the price of the suit land at the relevant time, it could be said that the amount of Rs.1000/- paid by the appellant was inadequate consideration and therefore the factor operating against the interest of the plaintiff?

3. The learned Judges committed error of law in holding error of law in holding that the appellant was not in possession of\the suit land although the recitals in sale deed at exh.53A sufficiently evidenced that the opponent had given the possession of the suit land B on the very day and that revenue authorities had rightly held that the sale-deed was accepted by both the parties and that the possession was handed over on that day itself.

4. The lower courts committed an error of law ill holding that the sale-deed had been executed as a security for the re-payment of the loan advanced whereas on face of the said sale-deed it is indicated that the said sale-deed dated 25.3.1968 was not by way of security for loan but was an out and out sale.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim for partition and possession is based on the title and the appellant has proved the title by production of sale-deed dated 25.03.1968. He submitted that this sale-deed was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of Registrar. The sale-d