Short Note : 1. The case of the plaintiffs was for possession of three acres of land out of 24.67 acres of Khasra No. 217 and also for mesne profits. The claim was based on the basis that one Saboolal son of Hazarilal had purchased 24.67 acres of land which included the suit land also from Premsingh and his mother on 25-5-1961 by a registered sale-deed for a consideration of Rs.12,000. Subsequently, on 16-10-1963. Premsingh repurchased 16 acres of land for a consideration of Rs.6000. Then, on 26-9-1963, Saboolal sold 4 acres of land to one Saboolal (DW 4) and subsequent thereto he further effected a sale of another 4 acres of land in favour of the plaintiff on 11-11-1963 vide registered sale-deed (Ex, P-2), According to the plaintiff, Premsingh executed a registered sale-deed dated 28-9-1963 (Ex. D-1) in favour of defendant laxminarayan, who in pursuance of the said sale-deed forcibly occupied the suit area out of the 4 acres of land which he had purchased. Hence the present suit. 2. The defendant denied to have made any encroachment on the land of the plaintiff. According to him, the transaction dated 21-9-1961 between Premsingh and Saboolal was a nominal one for the loan advanced. According to the defendant, Premsingh and his mother had taken a loan of Rs.7000 and the sale-deed was executed nominally as security for the loan. He further pleaded that after making part payment Premsingh got a deed of reconveyance executed (or 16 acres of land in his favour from Saboolal. According to him, the plaintiff never got possession of the land and the entire land measuring 24,67 acres remained throughout in possession of Premsingh. Thus, Saboolal bad no right to transfer the land in favour of the plaintiff and he could derive no title over the suit land in pursuance of that alienation. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff went up in appeal before the lower appellate Court which allowed the same and decreed the suit. Hence this second appeal by the defendant. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff went up in appeal before the lower appellate Court which allowed the same and decreed the suit. Hence this second appeal by the defendant. Held: In case it is finally held that the sale-deed dated 21-5-1961 by Premsingh and his mother in favour of Saboolal was out and: out sale, then the learned counsel appearing for the defendant stated that he cannot succeed in the present appeal The assertion of the plaintiff in the plaint that Premsingh and his mother sold 24-67 acres of land in favour of Saboolal vide registered sale-deed dated 21-5-61 was not repudiated by the defendant, but his plea was that the sale deed was nominal as security for the loan advanced and in that situation the said document was not filed by the plaintiff. In my opinion, the burden to prove that the transaction was nominal was upon the defendant. Thus, I have to see whether this burden has been discharged by the defendant or not, In para 1 of his written-statement the defendant, as mentioned earlier, clearly stated that the sale-deed was executed nominally by Premsingh and his mother in favour of Saboolal as security for the loan advanced. But Premsingh (DW2) in his evidence stated that the transaction was a mortgage thereby giving a go-by to the defence plea. In the same para he further stated that it was agreed between the parties that Saboolal will execute a deed of reconveyance in favour of his vendors, Premsingh and his mother, within 20 years, thereby introducing yet another plea wholly inconsistent with, pleadings in the written statement. The defendant claims title as purchaser from Premsingh (DW 2). There is no evidence on record that Premsingh exercised the right of reconveyance in respect of the suit land. Appeal dismissed.