Vijayendra Nath, J.

1. The main question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. Although at the time of admission of this appeal, by ORDER :dated 24.02.1994, two substantial questions of law were framed but the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the substantial question of law with regard to Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is not being pressed. However, he has proposed another substantial question of law, as to whether the reversal of finding by the appellate court below is against the provision of ORDER :41 Rule 31 C.P.C. as it has failed to pass a reasoned JUDGMENT : assigning its own reasons specially when there is absence of cogent evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to establish the sale deed dated 18.08.1973 Ext.F/1 as evidencing a sham transaction, and has prayed for hearing of this appeal on this substantial question of law also. In view of the JUDGMENT :, which is going to be passed hereafter, there is no necessity to formulate another substantial question of law and consider the same.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The parties, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their position in the suit.

3. The present second appeal has been filed against the JUDGMENT : and decree dated 05.05.1993 passed by Additional District Judge III, Nalanda Biharsharif in T.A.No.53/92 whereby the appeal has been allowed and the JUDGMENT : and decree passed in T.S. No. 181/1982/02/1992 dated 08.07.1992 by Sub Judge IV, Biharsharif has been set aside and the suit has been decreed. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 18.08.1973 is “numaisee” (showy) document which had not been acted upon. The further relief is for declaration that another sale deed dated 01.10.1974 had not been executed by the plaintiff and is a document void ab initio, and be set aside. Thereafter the plaintiff has also made the prayer for declaration of title over the suit house and recovery of possession.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is the case of the plaintiff that there was family relation between the plaintiff and the defendant who happened to be a friend of the plaintiff’s husband as well as a distant relative. The husband of the plaintiff and the defendant decided to set up a small scale industry and they also agreed to obtain loan from the industries department. The plaintiff accepted the advice of her husband to execute a sale deed for her house (suit house) in favour of the defendant as the defendant was required to have land in Biharsharif for obtaining loan from the government. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendant also convinced the plaintiff by wrongly representing the facts in that regard and thereafter the plaintiff executed a showy sale deed dated 18.08.1973 for a showy consideration money of Rs. 2000/- in favour of the defendant with regard to the suit house and got the same registered. It is further case of the plaintiff that due to nearness in relation with the defendant, she handed over the mortgage money to him for redemption of the mortgage of the suit house which he did but retained the mortgage deeds with him on false pretext. The plaintiff has alleged that later on the defendant also took the original sale deed of the suit house from the plaintiff and also obtained the key of the suit house for residing in the same, by misrepresenting the fact. The plaintiff has further asserted that when her husband came to know that the defendant was going to start business of light stainless steel materials exclusively in his own name in the suit house, he immediately filed a petition before the Sub Divisional Officer, Biharsharif to stop the business of the defendant and in the process he also came to know that the defendant