The court established that a transaction could be classified as a mortgage rather than a sale, emphasizing the burden of proof and admissibility of oral evidence.

1. By this second appeal under S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), the appellants have challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree dated 5.11.93 passed by the First Additional District Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Appeal No.76 - A / 91, reversing the judgment & decree of dismissal of the civil suit dated 5.12.84 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class - II, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.468A / 84.

2. Present second appeal was admitted for consideration on 1.7.94 on the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the transaction entered into between the parties, Ext. P1 is a mortgage or a sale outright ?"

3. As per claim of respondent No.1 Rahi Bai, Rahi Bai has purchased the suit property bearing khasra No.720 area 1.38 hectare situated at village Tulsi P.H.No.111, district Raipur vide registered sale deed dated 15.4.1976 on payment of consideration of Rs.3000/- and obtained possession, name of respondent No.1 has been mutated vide order dated 16.3.79. The appellants have committed theft of the crop shown by respondent No.1, then respondent No.1 has lodged the F.I.R., she was dispossessed by the appellants in the year 1979. Then suit for possession has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 on 12.8.80. By filing written statement the present appellants had denied the adverse allegation and have specifically pleaded that appellant No.1 has taken loan for her family on 15.4.76 and has executed one document in the shape of sale deed for security of loan. Respondent No.1 was in possession with the connivance of revenue officer, she was succeeded in mutation of her name and she has also lodged report against the appellants. Appellant No.1 was not competent to alienate the property of minors without permission of the District Judge. During pendency of the suit, respondent No.1 has executed sale deed in favour of Ajit, predecessor - in - title of respondents No.2(i) to 2(vi), therefore, he was impleaded as a party. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Third Civil Judge Class - II, Raipur has dismissed the suit for possession and held that transaction between the parties was loan transaction. Same was challenged before the lower appellate Court and vide judgment & decree impugned the lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment & decree passed by the Third Civil Judge Class - II and decreed the suit for possession in favour of the respondents.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment & decree, judgment & decree of the trial Court and records of the Courts below.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that present appellant No.1 Mangtin Bai, mother of other appellants, has taken loan from respondent No.1 Rahi Bai and has executed the document in the shape of sale deed, but same was only for security of loan, it was never intended to act upon the document was sham and nominal. Appellant No.1 was not competent to alienate the property of minor appellants No.2 to 9 without valid permission from the District Judge. By adducing evidence the present appellants have proved the fact and discharged their burden that it was not outright sale but was mortgage. Respondent No.1 has examined herself and as per finding of the trial Court same is unreliable witness. Respondent No.1 has failed to prove the fact that transaction is sale, but by adducing documentary and oral evidence the present appellants have discharged their burden. The appellants have succeeded in proving the fact that transaction was not sale, but for security of loan. Learned counsel further argued that respondent No.1 has