R.K. Deshpande, J.

1. Regular Civil Suit No. 370 of 1977 was decreed by the trial Court for arrears of rent and for possession of some portion of the house described in para 1 of the plaint from the defendant. The defendant is directed to handover vacant possession of the portion of the house described in column 'A' of the operative part of the order. The counter claim filed by the defendant was dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 278 of 1987 filed by the defendant has been allowed on 23rd August, 1991 and a decree passed by the trial court has been set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff has also been dismissed. The counter claim of the defendant for reconveyance of the property has also been dismissed. This second appeal is, therefore, preferred by the original plaintiff.

2. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties at length, this court had passed an order on 13th of June, 2014 which is reproduced below:

"After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the judgments delivered by the Courts below, it is very clear that the agreement at "Exhibit 120" and the sale deed at "Exhibit 121" both the documents executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, have been proved. The trial Court has rejected the contention of defendant No. 1 that either it was a loan transaction or there was an agreement of reconveyance. The appellate Court held that there was no agreement of reconveyance between the parties. However, the appellate Court reversed the decree passed by the trial Court on the ground that it was a loan transaction. That is the ground, hence, the following substantial questions of law are framed by this Court for final determination:

"1. Whether the finding recorded by the appellate Court that it was a loan transaction is perverse not being supported by the pleadings and proofs?

2. Whether it was permissible for the appellate Court to take into consideration the oral evidence against the contents of the registered documents at "Exhibit 120" and "Exhibit 121" in view of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Put up this matter for hearing on the substantial questions of law on 26th June, 2014, at Serial No. 1.

The learned counsel for the appellant to give notice to the learned counsel for the respondents on the substantial questions of law framed by this Court".

The learned counsels were given time to address on the aforesaid substantial question of law.

3. Coming to the substantial question of law at serial No. 1 above, the agreement to sale dated 7/6/1971 at Exhibit-120 and the sale deed executed pursuant thereto on 5/5/1972 at Exhibit-121, are the documents which are registered and held to have been proved by both the Courts below. There is no dispute raised in this second appeal, by any of the parties, in respect of it. Normally, the plaintiff, therefore, would be entitled to a decree, as has been passed by the trial Court. The appellate Court has, however, reversed the said decree passed holding that the transaction evidenced by the document at Exhibits 120 and 121, was a loan transaction and it was never intended to be acted upon between the parties. It is on this ground the appellate Court has held that the transaction evidenced by the documents at Exhibit 120 and 121, cannot be enforced and hence, plaintiff is held not entitled to a decree for possession.

4. I have gone through the pleadings and the written statement and, I find that the findings recorded by the appellate Court, are supported by the specific pleadings of the defendants in the written statement that it was a loan transaction. The appellate Court has considered the evidence of the plaintiff as well as that of the defendants. On the basis of several instances which are considered in the judgment, it has been held that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of money lending. The appellate Court has held that it is a case made out and established that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 4000/- only and th