J.B. Pardiwala, J.

This Second Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of the original plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and order dated 21/04/2018 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar in the Regular Civil Appeal No.48 of 2006 arising from the judgment and decree dated 11/07/2016 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Botad, District-Bhavnagar in the Regular Civil Suit No. 124 of 2015.

2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein after shall be referred to as the plaintiff and the respondent herein after shall be referred to as the defendant.

3. The plaintiff filed the Regular Civil Suit No.124 of 2015 for a declaration, permanent injunction and also, for cancellation of the two sale-deeds dated 13/03/2002 and 22/04/2003 respectively. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was in need of finance. In such circumstances, he had to borrow a sum of Rs. 1,12,000/- and thereafter, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- from the defendant. It is his case that by way of security, he agreed to execute two mortgage-deeds with respect to his two properties. However, according to him, fraud was played upon by the defendant and instead of getting a mortgage-deed executed in his favour the two sale-deeds came to be executed. The first sale-deed bearing registration No.528/2002 came to be registered on 13/03/2002 and the second sale-deed bearing registration No.1007/2003 came to be registered dated 22/04/2003. It is his case that he had no intention to execute any sale-deed in favour of the defendant. Thus, according to the plaintiff, fraud was played upon and in such circumstances, he had to file the suit for cancellation of the two sale-deeds.

4. The defendant appeared before the court below and contested the suit by filing his written-statement vide Exh.12. The defendant denied the entire case put up by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, after the sale-deeds came to be executed his name also came to be mutated in the revenue record. Even at the time when the names came to be mutated in the revenue records, no objection of any nature was raised by the plaintiff. The defendant has denied that he is engaged in the business of money lending. The defendant contended that even otherwise the suit was time barred as the two sale-deeds are of the year 2002 2003, whereas, the suit came to be filed in the year 2015.

5. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues vide Exh.36.

1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the suit property has been acquired by him with ownership and possession through the Sale Deed?

2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- and Rs. 60,000/-, which he had borrowed from the Defendant, had been repaid to the Defendant in installments?

3. Whether the Plaintiff proves that without his knowledge, the Defendant got the Sale Deed executed fraudulently and falsely at two different times in 2002 and 2003 ?

4. Whether the Defendant proves that as suit is barred by Limitation Act, it is liable to be dismissed?

5. Whether the Defendant proves that the suit is barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act and Transfer of Property Act?

6. Whether the Defendant proves that as the suit is barred by the mis-joinder of the parties, it is liable to be dismissed?

7. Whether the Defendant proves that he had purchased the land from the Plaintiff by way of the Registered Sale Deed in 2002 and 2003 and had paid the amount of consideration, and since then, the suit land is under the possession of the Defendant?

8. Whether the Defendant proves that as the suit is regarding cancellation of the Sale Deed, it is liable to be dismissed due to the insufficient Court Fees?

9. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get the relief as prayed by him?

10. What Order and Decree?

6. The issues framed by the trial Court referred to above came to be answered as under:-

1. In the negative.

2. In the negative.

3. Partly affirmative.

4. In the af