A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. Shri Bansal is heard on the question of admission.

2. The judgment passed by learned two Courts below dismissing the suit of plaintiff has been made pivot by plaintiff by filing this Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C.

3. A suit for declaration and injunction has been filed by plaintiff against the defendants with a prayer that the plot, which is the subject matter of the suit and the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint is in the ownership of the plaintiff and the defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff was in need of the money and, therefore, he took loan of Rs.2,000/- from the defendant No. 1-Smt. Munnibai @ Shantibai, who is the mother of the minor children defendants 2 and 3, namely, Kanhaiyalal and Satyanarayan. However, to secure the loan, a registered sale-deed (Ex.D/1) was executed on 29/7/ 1977 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 namely, Kanhaiyalal and Satyanarayan, who are the minor sons of defendant No. 1-Smt Munnibai @ Shantibai. According to the plaintiff, the execution of the sale-deed dated 29/7/1977 is only a shame transaction and it was never intended