JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The defendant/respondent claimed that it was a money lending transaction and the agreement was never intended to be acted upon.

3. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties to the suit, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that it was a money lending transaction and the suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and held that it was an agreement to sell. However, the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance of contract and the suit was well within limitation.

4. The following substantial questions of law were formulated, as per the order dated 11/9/1995:

(i) The Courts below wrongly inferred that the transaction was not sale transaction and it was loan transaction, contrary to the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, in accordance with the provisions contained in Ss. 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(ii) The Courts below committed error in deciding