1. This second appeal has been filed at the instance of defendant who has lost from both the Courts below. The suit for injunction filed by plaintiff respondent was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal which was filed by the defendant has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

2. In brief the suit of plaintiff is that the parties to the suit are the resident of village Hinotia (Bhui), Tahsil and District Jabalpur. The suit property is agricultural land, the description whereof has been mentioned in para 2 of the plaint, is in possession of p1aintiffKailash Pathak. The defendant is trying to take illegal possession of the suit property. It has also been pleaded that on 5.7.1995 when plaintiff went to plough the field, defendant did not permit him and also gave threat to kill, hence, the instant suit for injunction has been filed. The basis of the suit, according to the plaintiff, is the sale-deed which according to him, was executed by defendant in favour of his father Ramsevak Pathak somewhere in the year 1975. Further it has been pleaded that his father who bought the suit property from defendant died in the year 1994 and on the death of his father he became owner of the suit property. It has also been pleaded by plaintiff that during his life time plaintiff's father gave disputed land to different persons on Shikmi basis.

3. The defendant refuted the plaint averments by filing written statement and specifically pleaded therein that the sale-deed which was executed in favour of the father of plaintiff was as a security of loan which he took from him and it was not an out and out sale. Further it has been pleaded in para 2 of the written statement that on account of repayment of the loan amount, plaintiff's father after making necessary endorsement in that regard on the sale-deed returned the original sale-deed to the defendant. It has also been pleaded by the defendant that possession always remained with him.

4. Learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit of plaintiff holding him to be the Bhumiswami having possession on the suit property.

5. The appeal which was preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court.

6. In this manner the instant second appeal has been filed by the defendant.

7. This Court on 11.4.2005 admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law :

"(1) Whether the finding of both the Com1s below to the effect that the transaction between the parties was a sale deed and not a document executed for the security of the loan is illegal in view of the fact that the document was returned to the appellant?

(2) Whether the finding of Courts below that the respondent is in possession of the suit land is illegal?"

8. The contention of Shri V.R. Rao, learned senior counsel is that the original document of sale-deed was produced by defendant from his possession and the same was marked as Ex. D-1 and, therefore, it should be deemed that transaction between the defendant and the father of plaintiff, namely, Ramsevak Pathak was only a loan transaction and in order to secure the loan, sale-deed Ex. D-1 was executed on 22.6.1973. By pointing out the note on the original sale-deed (Ex. D-1) it has been contended by learned senior counsel that on 15.5.1975 the defendant repaid the loan amount Rs. 1,200/- to the father of the plaintiff and thereafter endorsing the said acknowledgment and by putting his signature, father of the plaintiff returned the original sale-deed to the defendant and, therefore, it is a clear case of loan transaction and the transaction was not out and out sale.

9. It has also been put-forth by learned senior counsel that so far as the possession part is concerned, no revenue record has been filed by the plaintiff in order to demonstrate his possession. The contention of learned senior counsel is that so far