1. This appeal has been filed at the instance of transferee of defendant No.1 Mangilal. The suit of plaintiff has been decreed by learned trial Court and the appeal which was filed by defendant and transferee of defendant has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

2. One Laluram filed civil suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right in respect of certain agricultural land, description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint and for injunction against defendant Mangilal son of Tulsiram. In that suit, State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Mandsaur has been arrayed as defendant No.2 in view of Order 1 Rule 3-B (M.P. Amendment) CPC as formal defendant and no relief has been claimed against it.

3. According to the plaint averments plaintiff is the Bhumiswami having possession on the suit property. He never sold the suit property to defendant Mangilal, who is his nephew. In plaint para 6 it has been pleaded by plaintiff that he was keen enough to get the suit property bequeathed in favour of defendant Mangilal, but on 1.10.1982 defendant Mangilal brought plaintiff to Mandsaur and with the collusion of petition writer Irfan Ali pacified plaintiff that now-a-days there is ban of registration of Will and, therefore, plaintiff should execute sale deed in favour of defendant Mangilal and there shall be no difference between the two documents. On such assurance, defendant Mangilal obtained signatures of plaintiff on some stamp papers and got the sale-deed registered. The plaintiff did not receive any consideration from defendant Mangilal nor plaintiff made any promise to give the same in future. According to the plaintiff, defendant Mangilal is a shrewd and clever person and plaintiff is a rustic villager as such he was unaware of the vile idea of defendant Mangilal. Thereafter, on 18.10.1995 plaintiff came to Mandsaur and on inquiry found that defendant Mangilal got the sale-deed executed in his favour and on that date the fraudulent act of defendant Mangilal came to his knowledge. Further it has been pleaded by plaintiff on 27.10.1995 defendant Mangilal declared that his name has also been mutated on the suit property and now he will cut the crop which has been sown by plaintiff and will take possession of the suit property. Hence present suit for cancellation of registered sale-deed dated 1.10.1982 being null and void; declaration of Bhumiswami rights on the suit property; and grant of decree of perpetual injunction that defendant Mangilal should not interfere in the possession of plaintiff, has been filed.

4. Defendant Mangilal filed written statement and refuted the plaint averments. According to him a valid sale-deed was executed by plaintiff in his favour and accordingly it was registered. The factum of not paying the consideration has been emphatically denied and it has been pleaded that after making payment of the entire consideration, sale-deed was got registered. In para 3 of the special plea, it has been pleaded by defendant Mangilal that after getting the sale-deed registered in his favour, possession was also delivered to him and since then he is possessing the suit property. On these premised pleadings it has been prayed by defendants that suit be dismissed.

5. Learned trial Court on the basis of averments made in the plaint and denial in the written statement framed necessary issues and after recording evidence of parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

6. Defendant Mangilal along with present appellant who is the transferee of defendant filed first appeal before learned lower appellate Court which has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

7. In this manner present second appeal has been filed by the appellant who is the transferee of defendant Mangilal.

8. This Court on 12.1.1998 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law :

"(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Courts below have erred in not holding the suit as time barred