The main legal point established is that the nature of a sale deed, the right to repurchase, and the applicable limitation for the suit are crucial factors in determining the outcome of property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.348 of 1984 by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Beed, dated 17.09.1994.

3. The appellants were the defendants, the respondents Nos.1 to 3 were the plaintiffs and respondent no. 4 was the defendant no. 1.

4. The brief facts of the case were that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for reconveyance and possession of the suit land survey No. 20/AA/@ of village Charatha, Tq. and District Beed, with mesne profit. The plaintiffs had a case that they were the brothers inter se, and defendant No.1 was their father. The fathers of defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 were the real brothers. They had confidence in each other. The suit land was the ancestral joint family property of plaintiffs and defendant no.1. They did not deny the execution of the sale deed by plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 on 14.06.1971. It was a registered conditional sale deed for a nominal consideration of Rs.1,000/-. Defendant no.2 had agreed to reconvey the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs on or before 13.06.1973. The market value of the suit land was Rs.10,000/-. The sale deed was executed to secure Rs.400/- borrowed and repay Rs.1000/- with interest. The real intention of the parties was not to execute the mortgage deed, but defendant No.2 had no money lending license, and they had confidence in him. Hence, the said conditional sale deed was executed to escape from the provisions of law opposing the public policy. Plaintiff nos.2 and 3 were minors and not parties to the sale deed. The sale deed was neither for any legal necessity nor the benefit of the estate, and it was not binding on them. Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No. 1 several times offered Rs.1,000/- within a stipulated period, but Defendant No.2 avoided reconveying the land. They were ready and willing to repay the loan and get the reconveyance and possession of the suit land.

5. Defendant no.2/present Appellant contested the suit and admitted the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1. Though the land was ancestral and joint family, he became the absolute owner from the date of the execution of the sale deed i.e. 14.06.1971. There was no agreement of reconveyance, but the condition was inserted in the sale deed for the convenience of the parties. He denied that the sale deed was for securing the amount of Rs.400/- and repaying Rs.1,000/- with interest. It was out and out sale, and it was never agreed to reconvey the suit land. The reasonable consideration was paid. It was not a money-lending transaction. He entered his name in the revenue record. He was enjoying the suit land peacefully and without interruption. He prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

6. The learned Court of first instance had dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had proved that defendant no.1 and plaintiff no.1 had executed a conditional registered sale deed on 14.06.1971 for consideration of Rs.1,000/-. He also held that it was agreed between defendant no.1 and plaintiff no.1 that defendant no.2 would reconvey the suit land in favour of the plaintiff before 13.06.1973. It was also held that the plaintiff's suit was not within limitation. The suit was dismissed mainly on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Against the said judgment, the original plaintiffs had preferred the appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had proved that plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 had executed the conditional sale deed in favour of defendant no.2. The First Appellate Court held that the document is not the conditional sale deed. It was to be reconveyed within the period of two years. The First Appellate Court also held that since it is a mortgage, the action available for the mortgage is by way of suit for redemption un