The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the transaction, maintainability of the suit, and the plea of limitation were crucial in determining the outcome of the case.

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

The defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that a sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property was only executed by the plaintiff as security for the amount borrowed and that it does not create any title in the defendant and that the property had always been in the possession of the plaintiff and the consequential relief of a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from entering on the property on the strength of the said sale deed. He sale deed was executed by the plaintiff to the defendant on 6.1.1976. The suit for the declaration and injunction as above was filed on 28. 8.1984. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the said decree was confirmed by the lower appellate count. The defendant challenges the decrees thus passed.

2. In the Memorandum of Second Appeal the appellant sought to raise the following substantial questions of law:

"A. Was the suit maintainable?

R Has the plaintiff right to the declaration prayed for? Even if the plaintiff s contentions were true, can he sue for declaration or he must sue for specific performance?

C Was not the suit barred by time? Was it not to get over limitation, that the suit was framed as one for declaration?

D. Was not S.92(1) of the Evidence Act a bar to the plaintiff claim?

E Did not the Courts below decide the suit on the basis of inadmissible and irrelevant evidence?

F. Have not the Courts below misappreciated the testimony and indulged in unwarranted conjectures and

surmises?"

3. When the matter came up for admission this Court ordered notice on the substantial question of law as formulated above. Hence, the above substantial questions of law have to be answered in this Second Appeal. Of course, in terms of S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court can also raise any other substantial question of law that may arise in the light of the arguments addressed before it. The fact that the above questions have been framed at the time of admission is no bar for the adoption of that course.

4. The property belonged to the plaintiff. He executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant on 6.1.1976. The said document was marked Ext. Al in the suit. Ext. Al describes the transaction as a sale deed. It asserts the title and possession of the assignor as on the date of that deed. It conveys the entire rights of the assignor for a price of Rs. 2000 to the defendant. It recites that the amount of Rs. 2000 was actually received. It recites that except one coconut palm aged 55 years, possession of which was being retained by the transferor, possession of the entire property was being conveyed to the transferee. It says that the entire rights of the assignor had come to an end and from the date of the sale the transferee was to hold the property under absolute right and obtain the assignment of the rights of the jenmi. It again reiterated that from the date of the sale the assignor had no right over the property and no possession over the same. The document contains an assurance that there was no encumbrance created over the property by the assignor. It also recites that until the coconut palm 55 years old which had not been conveyed under the document dies due to natural causes, the transferor will have the right to take the income from that palm. According to the plaintiff this document was executed by him in favour of the defendant to secure a sum of Rs. 2000 which was borrowed by him and the document was intended only to be an instrument to secure the repayment. The plaint further stated that when the sum of Rs. 2000 which was lent by the defendant to the plaintiff was repaid, it was the agreement between the parties that the defendant would execute a deed of re-conveyance of the property in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant had given the assurance to re-convey the property. Since the plaintiff was in need of