Short Note : 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of one acre of Khasra No. 91/2 situate in village Basahari, tahsil Khurai, district Sagar and for mesne profits. The plaintiff's case is that by a registered sale-deed, Ex-P-1, dated 27.6.1962 executed by Phoolsingh, the previous owner, in plaintiff's favour the suit land along with some other land was sold to the plaintiff for Rs. 600/- that possession of the suit land was simultaneously given by Phoolsingh to the plaintiff and in 1966 the defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land and cut away the grass grown therein. The defendants are the widow and a minor son of Phoolsingh. It is on these allegations that the aforesaid reliefs have been claimed. 2. The defendants denied the plaintiff's case alleging that the transaction evidenced by Ex.P-1 was in reality a loan and not a sale, the loan having been taken by Phoolsingh for the marriage of his minor daughter, possession of the suit land was never given to the plaintiff on account of which the question of dispossession did not arise. 3. The trial Court held that delivery of possession by Phoolsingh to the plaintiff had not been proved. The suit was dismissed mainly on this ground. On appeal by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court has decreed the suit for refund of Rs. 600/- the amount paid by the plaintiff to Phoolsingh while the plaintiff's claim for obtaining possession has been dismissed. It has been held that delivery of possession of the suit land to the plaintiff by Phoolsingh under the alleged sale was not proved and that the transaction evidenced by Ex.P-1 was in substance that of a loan. The decree for refund of Rs. 600 is passed on these findings. 4. Shri V.S. Pandit, learned counsel for the appellant tried to assail the finding of the Court below with regard to the nature of transaction between the plaintiff and Phoolsingh. In my opinion, even on merits the finding is justified. The plaintiff Laxman Prasad (PW-1) admitted that Rs. 600/- were taken by Phoolsingh from him for the marriage of his minor daughter. Other PWs. also support this evidence. In my opinion, even on merits the finding is justified. The plaintiff Laxman Prasad (PW-1) admitted that Rs. 600/- were taken by Phoolsingh from him for the marriage of his minor daughter. Other PWs. also support this evidence. This together with the fact that possession of the suit land was not delivered to the plaintiff as found by the Court below, is sufficient to support the conclusion that the transaction was really of loan and not of sale as found by the first appellate Court. On this conclusion, the decree passed by the first appellate Court is no doubt justified. Appeal dismissed.