R.D. Shukla, J. -- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4-5-1984, passed in Civil Appeal No. 66-A of 1981 by the Court of First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Chhindwara (arising out of Civil Suit No. 61-A of 1979, decided on 27-1-1981 by the Court of First Civil Judge (Class II), Chhindwara, whereby the judgment of dismissal of the suit has been reversed and the plaintiff's suit is decreed.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the defendant No.1 Deokoobai had executed the sale-deed (Ex.P-1), on 16-9-1969. The house in dispute is situated on Nazul Block No. 27, Plot Nos. 101/1 and 101/2, area 730 Sqr. ft., with an open land bearing Khasra No. 482, area 0.22 acre. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant No.2 Anna rao for recovery of rent, which was dismissed and confirmed in appeal also.

3. The plaintiff's case, in brief, is that he purchased the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- from defendant No.1 Deokoobai, vide sale deed dated 16-9-1969 (Ex. P-1). The same house was given on rent to the defendant No.2 Annarao, who was living with Deokoobai (defendant No.1). The defendants cooperated in the mutation proceedings. However, they failed to pay rent, in spite of service of notice on them, as also failed to deliver possession of the suit house to the plaintiff.

4. The defendants, however, pleaded that the plaintiff is carrying on business of money lending and, therefore, they obtained Rs. 3,000/- as a loan from him. The document was a nominal, sham and not to be acted upon. It was executed as a collateral security for loan. The trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the plaintiff's appeal was accepted by the first appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal.

5. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law –

"(1) Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court with regard to the nature of the transaction dated 15-9-1969 being in disregard of material evidence and contrary to the dicta laid down in 1972 JLJ at page 632, is illegal and perverse'!

(2) Whether as a result of the mis-interpretation of the provisions of Sec. 58 (C) of the Transfer of Property Act, whereby the defendants were barred from proving the transaction to be one of loan, the judgment of the lower appellate-Court is vitiated'!" The third question of law has already been decided by the order of this Court dated 10-9-1990.

6. After hearing the counsel for parties at length, the case was remanded to the trial Court under Order 41, Rule 23 of the C.P.C., with the direction that the defendant be allowed to amend the pleading and, thereafter, parties be allowed to lead evidence on the points so raised. Now, the findings have been received hack by this Court.

7. Normally, the finding of fact of the first appellate Court is binding and is not to be disturbed at the second appellate stage- -unless it is shown that in reaching it, a mistake of law has been committed by the Additional District Judge. The Court is under a duty to examine the entire relevant evidence on record and if it refuses to consider important evidence having direct bearing on the disputed issue and the error which arises is of a magnitude that it gives birth to a substantial question of law, the High Court is fully authorised to set aside the Now, therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the learned first appellate Court has misdirected itself as to application of law and as to whether it failed to consider material piece of evidence.

8. It is an undisputed fact that the suit house was purchased by the defendant-appellant on a price of Rs. 6,000/- vide registered sale-deed dated 6-2-1969. The same property, with an addition of plot, was sold to plaintiff-respondent on' a price of Rs. 3,000/-. It appears wholly unnatural as to why a person would sell the property for less than half of the price and, that too, after the period of seven months from the date of purchase. Now, with the present