1. By this second appeal under section 100 CPC the appellants challenge the judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below inter-alia on the grounds that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent No.1 had sold the property and, therefore, he had no existing right to continue with the suit and the sale deed was in fact security for loan, was sham and bogus and was not to be acted upon.

2. The appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

1) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondel1t lost his right to continue with the suit having sold the property in favour of the third party during the pendency of this suit"?

2) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale deed was a security for loan only, was sham and bogus and was not to be acted upon"?

With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

3. The plaintiff/respondent No. I filed the suit against the present appellants inter-alia pleading that the suit property was purchased by him from the appellant No.2 on 11.4.85 for consideration of Rs. 7,000/- and after some time i.e. 15.4.85 the property was given back to the appellant No.1 fo