JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS Second Appeal by the plaintiffs against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below was admitted for hearing on 13-12-1983 on the following two substantial questions of law : (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it should have been held that Jugarua had in fact mortgaged the suit land in favour of the defendant No. 1 and not sold? (ii) Whether Jugarua could alienate the property belonging to the joint Hindu family of himself and the plaintiffs, without any legal necessity for the family and whether the burden to prove the legal necessity was on the defendants? ( 2. ) THE suit was for declaration of title and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the suit land. It was alleged that the suit land was the joint Hindu family property, which stood recorded in the name of Jugarua Dhobi. On 17-12-1965 Jugarua took a loan of Rs. 100/- from the defendant No. 1 Chhotelal and executed a sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit land on being misrepresented that it was a deed of simple mortgage for securing the repayment of loan. Jugarua continued in possession of the land. The loan was repaid, but the defendant No. 1 dishonestly got his name mutated in revenue papers. After the death of Jugarua in the year 1970, the defendant No. 1 sold the suit land to the defendant No. 2 Sardar Singh, though it was in possession of the plaintiffs as the widow and the sons of Jugarua. The defendants, thereafter, started threatening the plaintiffs to dispossess them from the suit land by reaping their crops. The plaintiffs had, therefore, to file the present suit for declaration of their title and for injunction. The defendants denied the plaint allegations and asserted that Jugarua had outright sold the land to the defendant No. 1, who in turn had sold it to the defendant No. 2. They also claimed to be in possession of the land in pursuance of the impugned sales. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the lower appellate Court upheld the same. The plaintiffs have, therefore, filed this second appeal. ( 3. They also claimed to be in possession of the land in pursuance of the impugned sales. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the lower appellate Court upheld the same. The plaintiffs have, therefore, filed this second appeal. ( 3. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the plaintiffs suit deserves to be decreed after setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. A careful reading of the plaint pleadings would show that in essence the plaintiffs case was that for security of repayment of loan of Rs. 100/-, Jugarua had executed a nominal sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1 on 17-12-1965, which was not intended to be acted upon by the parties. It has been proved that the very land was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/- to the defendant No. 2 by the defendant No. 1 on 3-3-1976. Though it was recited in the sale deeds that the possession of the land was delivered to the purchaser, it continued to be in possession of Jugarua till the date of his death and, thereafter, in possession of the plaintiffs, who are his legal heirs, as would be evident from the various revenue entries filed as Exs. P1, P2 and P3. The order dated 16-1-1985 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Panna on an appeal filed by Chhotelal was produced before this Court by the plaintiffs on 31-1-1985 along with an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. The document is a public document, which came into existence during the pendency of this second appeal. It cannot, therefore, be overlooked. The application under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code is allowed and the document is admitted. It also shows possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land till the date of that order. This is not the only piece of evidence in support of plaintiffs possession and, therefore, neither a prayer was made nor it appears necessary to afford time to the defendants to adduce evidence in rebuttal. Further, it is significant to note that although Chhotelal had sold the land to the defendant No, 2 in the year 1976, he was fighting litigation in revenue Courts even thereafter in order to establish his possession. No land revenue was shown to have been even paid by the defendants. Further, it is significant to note that although Chhotelal had sold the land to the defendant No, 2 in the year 1976, he was fighting litigation in revenue Courts even thereafter in order to establish his possession. No land revenue was shown to have been even paid by the defendants. In addition to all this, what is most striking is that it is not the isolated transaction of its type. In this part of the country, such transactions are so much in vogue that the Legislature had to step in the field of legislation by enacting M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 with a view to relieve poor agriculturists in the weaker section of the people from the hands of unscrupulous money-lenders and by virtue of section 4 thereof, the plaintiffs would be entitled to the reliefs claimed by them in this suit under the provisions of that Act notwithstanding anything contained in the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 "or any other enactment for the time being in force or any decree or order, if any, of any Court or authority". ( 4. ) ONE more fact may be mentioned, On 2-11-1989, the parties took time to find out ways to arrive at amicable settlement. Further time was taken on27-11-1989. On 29-11-1989 it was reported that the compromise talks had failed, but the learned counsel for the appellants orally state in the presence of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants were willing to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- in order to settle the dispute out of Court. The offer was turned down. A statement in writing was also made on 28-11-1989 that the appellants would be willing to abide by any order that may be passed by the Court, in order to protect their possession over the suit land. This shows the earnestness on the part of the appellants to save their possession over the land. However, no order for payment of any amount to the defendants can be made in this appeal. ( 5. ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this appeal succeeds and it is hereby allowed. This shows the earnestness on the part of the appellants to save their possession over the land. However, no order for payment of any amount to the defendants can be made in this appeal. ( 5. ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this appeal succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the plaintiffs suit is decreed by declaring them to be the owners and/or Bhumiswamis in possession of the suit land and the defendants are permanently restrained from disturbing their possession over it in pursuance of the alleged sale deeds in their favour. ( 6. ) IN the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their costs as incurred throughout.