1. This is an Appeal by the original defendants.

2. Indubai and her two sons Haribhau and Chandrakant had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 678 of 2004 against legal heirs of Gulabchand Gandhi the appellants herein. As per plaint, the suit property was land of 2 acres and 12 gunthas bearing block No. 195, situated at Mouje Savalvihir, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land was their ancestral property. In 1964, their ancestor Pundalik was in financial difficulty. The defendant Gulabchand was running a grocery shop. Pundalik mortgaged the suit land with him on 27.04.1964 by registered mortgage deed for Rs.3,000/-. It was agreed that the amount was to be returned within 10 years and the defendant was to execute reconveyance. It was further recorded that in case the amount would not be returned within 10 years, the document would become a permanent sale deed. The common ancestor of the plaintiffs, Pundalik died and the plaintiffs from time to time approached the defendants with the mortgage amount and requested for reconveyance, but the defendants declined. Hence, the suit for redemption of mortgage, for return of mortgage deed and execution of reconveyance and for possession with mesne profits was filed. The defendant- Gulabchand denied that he has advanced loan of Rs.3,000/-. He also denied the other contents regarding cause of action. He claimed that it was a sale transaction with right for the vendor to obtain reconveyance by paying amount within five years or extended period of five years total 10 years. The suit was not filed within 3 years from the said cause of action when the period was over, and therefore, the suit was barred by limitation.

3. The learned trial Judge framed issues. Plaintiff No. 3 Chandrakant examined himself and produced some documents including certified copy of mortgage deed, exhibit-27. The legal heirs of the defendants did not enter the witness box. The trial court by Judgment dated 16.04.2011 held that it was mortgage transaction and the suit was within limitation. He granted the decree for redemption and directed the plaintiff to deposit the amount within 30 days.

4. The aggrieved defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 47/2011 before District Judge-I, Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. The learned Judge of the Appellate Court after hearing the parties, by Judgment dated 14.12.2017 dismissed the appeal with costs. The aggrieved defendants have preferred the second appeal.

5. The following substantial question of laws are framed :

(I) Whether the suit document dated 27.04.1964 is out and out sale deed or it is mortgage by conditional sale as interpreted by the courts below ? and ;

(II) Whether the suit is within limitation ?

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Malte submitted that plaintiff No. 3, the only witness on behalf of the plaintiffs had no personal knowledge. Their is admission that his knowledge is hearsay. There was no debtor-creditor relationship between the parties. The contents of the document exhibit-27 disclose that it is a sale deed with the right to repurchase within the time limit fixed. The plaintiff had not complied the terms and conditions and of reconveyance and the suit filed after 40 years was barred by limitation. In the alternative, he submitted that even if it is assumed to be mortgage by conditional sale, the period of limitation was till the end of month of Marathi month Phalgun, within 10 years from the date of the deed dated 27.04.1964. He argued that the right to redeem mortgage was upto end of Phalghun of 1974. The month of Phalgun was over by 27th March, 1974. The suit is not filed within 30 years from the date of cause of action as per Article 61 of the Limitation Act. He relied on number of Rulings, which will be considered in due course.

7. Per contra, learned Advocate Ms. Smita Kulkarni made submissions that when there are concurrent