JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J.—This appeal is directed against judgment dated 25.3.1987 of 1 Additional District Judge, Sagar, in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/84. This judgment confirms the judgment and decree dated 20.1.1984 passed by the Additional Civil Judge Class I. Sagar in civil suit No. 238-A/83. 2. The Trial Court had decreed the suit of Munnibai (she being plaintiff No.2 originally and being substituted as legal representative of her mother Janakdulari Plaintiff No. 1 due to her death during the pendency of the suit) holding that Munnibai was owner of the disputed lands to the extent of half portion in spite of the sale-deed Ex.P.-5 dated 1.5.1957 by Pyarelal PW-2 in favour of Janakdulari, mother of Munnibai. and further that the sale-deed EX.D-1 dated 4.8.1973 executed by Janakdulari in respect of suit land in favour of appellants 2 and 3 under the guardianship of their father appellant No. 1 Mahadev, was. in fact, not a sale-deed, but loan transaction of Rs.4,000/- taken by Janakdulari from Mahadev and the sale deed was executed just as a security and the property of Janakdulari was to be reconveyed to her on return of Rs.4.000/- loan to the defendants and possession was, given to the defendants to cover the interest on the loan. A decree was passed that even though sale-deed was in favour of Janakdulari, since agreement to sale was entered into by Rameshwar, the father of Munnibai and husband of Janakdulari (and Rameshwar died by execution of a death warrant against him. Some days before the sale-deed) Munni as daughter of Rameshwar is to be considered as owner of 1/2 and Janakdulari of the other half. So the transfer by Janakdulari in favour of defendants could apply only to her 1/2 share and not to half share of Munni. A decree was thus passed that on payment of Rs.4.000/- by Munnibai who is legal representative of Janakdulari being her daughter, a reconveyance should be executed by the appellants/defendants in favour of Munnibai about half of the properly and also being owner of the other half, possession of entire land should be delivered to the plaintiff. This judgment and decree of the Trial Court was confirmed by the Appellate Court in its judgment and decree. 3. This suit had been filed by Janakdulari and Munnibai against the 4 defendants With plea that Mahadev, appellant No.1 is the Nandoi of Janakdulari (Janakdulari's husband's sister's husband). This judgment and decree of the Trial Court was confirmed by the Appellate Court in its judgment and decree. 3. This suit had been filed by Janakdulari and Munnibai against the 4 defendants With plea that Mahadev, appellant No.1 is the Nandoi of Janakdulari (Janakdulari's husband's sister's husband). Thus he was a close relative. Rameshwar was husband of Janakdulari and father of Munnibai but he was hanged on 5.4.1957 in execution of death sentence passed by the sessions Court u/s 302 Indian Penal Code. However. it was stated that Rameshwar had agreed to purchase the disputed land which measures 20.84 acres for Rs. 1.000/- from one Pyarelal and even paid Rs.800/- towards its price to cover the rest of the sale price. He had paid Takabi loan of Pyarelal to the extent of Rs.200/-. Thus he paid the entire sale price of Rs. 1,000/-. The sale-deed in favour of Janakdulari was executed by Pyarelal on 1.5.1957 i.e. 26 days after the hanging of Rameshwar. At that time Munnibai was child of about 10 months and could not assert her rights. Although the purchase had been completed by Rameshwar, so in spite of sale deed being in favour of Janakdulari even Munnibai became owner of half of the disputed l(sic)d. The further plea was that Janakdulari needed money for maintenance of herself and Munnibai. She approached Mahadev in confidence being her near relative for loan who showed wilhngnessr if she executed sale-deed for the loan in his favour to ensure repayment of loan. It was agreed that she will hand over possession of the land to Mahadev so that he could get its produce in lieu of interest of loan. It was agreed that whenever Janakdulari returns Rs.4.000/- to Mahadev he would get the sale-deed executed in her favour. Janakdulari was an illiterate lady and she fell in for the offer of Mahadev due to her own needs. So she executed sale-deed in favour of the minor sons of Mahadev i.e.. appellants 2 to 4. It is asserted that at the relevant time the price of the land was least Rs. 20,0000/- and so Janakdulari would have actually not agreed to transfer the land. It is asserted that later on she offered the loan amount to the appellants but they refused to return the land to her. She is still prepared to repay the loan amount of Rs.4.0t)0/-. 20,0000/- and so Janakdulari would have actually not agreed to transfer the land. It is asserted that later on she offered the loan amount to the appellants but they refused to return the land to her. She is still prepared to repay the loan amount of Rs.4.0t)0/-. The sale is urged to be sham transaction Hence the suit was filed on 30.7.1976. i.e.. within 3 years of the transaction with prayer that the land be directed to be reconveyed to her on payment of Rs.4.000/-. 4. Three sets of written statements were filed by the Defendants. A joint written statement by defendants I and 2 who were then majors. A separate written statement by defendant No.4Govindmurari through guardian-ad-litem S.K. Tamrakar. Advocate. was filed and a separate written statement was filed by this defendant when he became major i.e.. 18.1.1983. Mahadev father of other defendants filed a separate written statement. Mahadev admitted that Janakdulari was widow of his brother-in-law (Sala). He however denied agreement of sale by Pyarelal in favour of Rameshwar and urged that sale consideration of Rs.800/- paid to Pyarelal was so paid that Rs.400/- were paid by Janakdulari and Rs.400/- by Bhagwatibai wife of Mahadev and in lieu of interest Pyarelal had given possession of the land. The death of Rameshwar in execution of a death warrant was not contested. It was denied that the transaction between the defendants and Janakdulari was a loan transaction or that he had agreed to reconvey the land to Janakdulari on payment of Rs.4.000/-. She was having independent consultancy and was not under influence of Mahadev. Proper market price was paid for the land which was uncultivated and was lying fallow. It was not useful to her and she could not look after it. She executed the sale-deed after consulting her brother Durgaprasad. The other respondents plea was parallel to that of Mahadev. They had denied that sale consideration was paid by deceased Rameshwar to Pyarelal. 5. The findings of both the Courts below were based on oral evidence only Of course the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs by Pyarelal was exhibited as Ex.P-5 and the sale-deed in favour of the defendants was exhibited as D-1. The assertion of defendants I, 2 and 3 that their mother Bhagwati who was wife of defendant No.4 Mahadev also purchased half share from Pyarelal. The assertion of defendants I, 2 and 3 that their mother Bhagwati who was wife of defendant No.4 Mahadev also purchased half share from Pyarelal. was repelled in the absence of any evidence and the oral evidence of Mahadev or his witnesses about it was rejected as unreliable. It was found that the sale-deed Ex.D-1 was in fact by way of security and the amount of Rs.4,000/- was paid as loan to Janakdulari by Mahadev on the premises that the market price of the land which was more than 22 acres was about Rs.20.000/- at the time of sale on 4.8.1973 and there was closer relationship between Janakdulari and Mahadev and his sons. The statement of Pyarelal. that he had initially received consideration from Rameshwar after which he executed sale-deed Ex.P-5 in favour of Janakdulari as Rameshwar died under death penalty, was acceptable as truthful. PVV-3 Gayaprasad was witness to the sale-deed Ex.D-1. His statement was accepted that Rs.4,000/- had been paid as loan and the sale-deed was executed to ensure the repayment. 6. The evidence of defendants that the price of the land was not more than Rs.4.000/- at the time of sale was not accepted. No documentary evidence has been produced to show who cultivated the land. But the case of the plaintiff was that Janakdulari had given possession of the suit land to defendants at the time of execution of sale-deed Ex.D-1. 7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that there is no material on record to hold that Rameshwar had paid the price to Pyarelal and statement of Pyarelal at this stage should be discarded as he had no interest left in the land He may say whatever he likes. He is simply siding with the plaintiff. But he cannot be allowed to speak against the terms recorded in Ex.P-5, the sale-deed, in favour of Janakdulari which no where records that the amount of Rs.800/- had been paid by Rameshwar. 8. This Court has perused the record. In sale-deed Ex.P-5 it is stated that Pyarelal had received Rs.800/- from Janakdulari and she Had paid Rs.200/- of Takabi for him and thus payment of Rs. 1,000/-was made and so he sold his land to Janakdulari. In nowhere suggests that the payment was made by Rameshwar. The defendants case was that payment of Rs.500/- was made by Janakdulari and Rs.500/- by Bhagwati. 1,000/-was made and so he sold his land to Janakdulari. In nowhere suggests that the payment was made by Rameshwar. The defendants case was that payment of Rs.500/- was made by Janakdulari and Rs.500/- by Bhagwati. the wife of Mahadev. This was found not established. Janakdulari died before she could depose as witness in Court and Munni was substituted for her interest also as legal representative. 9. A perusal of record shows that there is total absence of evidence that Rs. 1.000/- was paid by Rameshwar and so that finding of such payment is without any basis and would be called perverse and the statement of Pyarelal cannot be trusted. So far as PW-4 Bhagwandas is concerned, he is father of Janakdulari. He says that Rs. 1.000/- was paid by Rameshwar to Pyarelal. He is not a witness to the sale-deed Ex.P-5. The witnesses to that deed arc Moolchand and Bhirdi. They have not appeared as witnesses. Of Course, it is not known whether they are alive or dead. There appears little reason to accept the version of Bhagwandas against the recitations in the sale-deed. Janakdulari died before she could made a statement and statement of Munnibai is based on hearsay as to what Janakdulari had told her. In these circumstances this Court is of the view that the trial Court hand the first Appellate Court have erred in law in accepting totalis weightless. irrelevant evidence regarding payment of consideration by Rameshwar in respect of sale deed by Pyarelal in favour of Janakdulari (Ex.P-5). 10. Thus the inference that Munnibai became owner of half portion of the suit land is without any evidence. That finding therefore is to be set aside. There is no dispute that Pyarelal was the owner of the land. There is no evidence that half of the consideration was paid by Bhagwati to Pyarelal. The Court has to go by the recitals in the sale-deed which is as late as 1957 and stood the test of time till 1976 when the present suit was filed. So this Court finds that only Janakdulari became owner of the property in dispute by purchase from Pyarelal by sale-deed Ex.P-5. 11. The Court has to go by the recitals in the sale-deed which is as late as 1957 and stood the test of time till 1976 when the present suit was filed. So this Court finds that only Janakdulari became owner of the property in dispute by purchase from Pyarelal by sale-deed Ex.P-5. 11. The only other question which remains is whether the finding that the sale-deed Ex.D-1 in 1973 was a sham transaction just to ensure repayment of loan of Rs.4.000/- taken by the execution from the vendees' father is illegal or unjustified. There is no dispute that Rs.4,000/- had passed from Mahadev to Janakdulari. Mahadev admitted in his statement that no money was paid by him to Janakdulari. before the Sub-Registrar as a consideration for sate and the amount of Rs. 4.000/- had been paid by him to his wife Bhagwati who passed it to Janakdulari on 30.8.1973. Sale-deed Ex.D-1 is dated 4.8.1973. Thus according to the defendants the consideration was not paid before the Sub-Registrar, and it was paid earlier. The endorsement on the sale-deed shows that the consideration was accepted by the vendor Janakdulari. It is a relevant factor that the consideration was not paid before the Sub-Registrar. 12. The next factor is what was the market price of the land at the time of sale-deed i.e., 4.8.1973. Both the Courts below have found that the price was not less than Rs. 8,000/- and it might have been a milling between Rs. 20,000/- to 30,000/- also. The total land is more than 22 acres. At the time when Mahadev was giving his testimony as DW-1 on 3.12.1982 he stated the value of land as Rs. 15.000/-. He was asked if he was prepared to transfer the land for that money, he did not agree to transfer the land to plaintiff for that money and urged that he could sell half share for Rs. 15,000/-. So his own assessment of the price of the land even in 1983 when he was making statement was high and be urged that the price was Rs. 30,000/- in 1983. Thus the assertion of Mahadev that nobody was prepared to purchase the land even for Rs.2.000/- is self saving statement which could be given no value. No other witness had spoken about market price in 1973. 30,000/- in 1983. Thus the assertion of Mahadev that nobody was prepared to purchase the land even for Rs.2.000/- is self saving statement which could be given no value. No other witness had spoken about market price in 1973. As against this PW-5 Bhagwandas has asserted that the price of land was Rs.1,000/- per acre in 1973. According to Mahadev Bhagwandas was present at the time of sale-deed D-1. Of course, the statement of Bhagwandas is an opinion and not based on concrete instances of sale. But he was not cross examined. According to Gayaprasad the value of land in 1973 was about Rs 1,500/- 1,600/- per acre. He admitted that the price of the development in 1982 was several thousands per acre. In the end he said that at the time of purchase he had purchased half of the land for Rs.4,000/- because he himself owned the oilier half. 13. The Trial Court and the first appellate Court had appreciated the evidence and reached the conclusion that the suit land was valued at more than double price of Rs.4,000/- at the time of sale and its price might have been more than Rs.30,000/-. From the evidence on record this Court finds that finding of both the Court below cannot be faulted. In the absence of any definite evidence from the defendant and in view of his own statement, the statements of the witness of the plaintiff are entitled to reasonable weight and credibility. So this Court confirms the findings that the sale-deed was made on unconscionably low price and it is doubtful if it was transaction of sale. The assertion that it was in fact a loan transaction of Rs.4,000/- and the sale-deed was executed as a security, gets strength from the circumstances. 14. The close relationship of the plaintiff and the defendants coupled with the fact that Janakdulari was illiterate lady in need a widow with child to maintain and did not have any independent advise on executing the sale-deed, are material factors. The possession was given to the defendants as is admitted by her, which was towards payment of interest of loan. 15. The possession was given to the defendants as is admitted by her, which was towards payment of interest of loan. 15. It is worth noticing that the defendant proved on record the certified copy of objection petition filed by vendee Janakdulari before Tahsildar on 5.4.1974 urging that she had been misled by Mahadev and fraud was played upon her by intoxicating her and she did not know of the type of document which was recorded. The following facts are found established - (i) Janakdulari was owner in possession of the suit land. (ii) The amount of Rs.4,000/- as passed over to Janakdulari by Bhagwati wife of Mahadev before the date of sale-deed. (iii) The sale consideration was Unconscionably low and inadequate in comparison to market price of land which was more than Rs.30,000/-. (iv) Mahadev was closely related to Janakdulari so it could be assumed that he was in a possession to influence Janakdulari Will regarding management of her land. The possession of the land was given by the plaintiff to the defendants. (v) Janakdulari was burdened with liability to maintain a daughter aged about 17 years presumably of marriageable age. 16. The question is whether in these circumstances the plea of the plaintiff that it was a transaction of loan with sale-deed as a security with consent that the property would reconveyed to the plaintiff. Both sides have relied on a pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court in Mandas vs. Manbai, 1972 MPLJ 852 , In this case the purchaser had sued for possession of the land on the basis of sale-deed in his favour-The vendor pleaded that the document was not intended to convey title but was related to loan and led oral evidence about it. The vendor was an old man of 6-years. The Court observed that the defendant could plead that the document was not intended to convey title put related to loan. The price was found to be inadequate. In these circumstances the sale-deed was held to be fictious and the suit was dismissed. 17. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that bar of Section 92 Evidence Act applied against assertions raised by plaintiffs. It is urged that the plaintiff cannot go beyond the term recorded in the sale-deed and cannot prove that the sale-deed was not what it purports to be but was intended to be a different transaction. 17. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that bar of Section 92 Evidence Act applied against assertions raised by plaintiffs. It is urged that the plaintiff cannot go beyond the term recorded in the sale-deed and cannot prove that the sale-deed was not what it purports to be but was intended to be a different transaction. This assertion is negatived by the judgment cited by the Counsel for the appellants. The Division Bench further observed in above cited case that when the vendor's plea is that the sale-deed was factious and no interest in the property passed to plaintiff and it was intended to be only security for loan, the vendor could prove those allegations and Section 92 Evidence Act did not come in way. 18. The Supreme Court dealt with the bar of Section 92 in the case of Smt. Gangabai Gilda Vs. Smt. Chhabubai Gandhi, . Their Lordships observed that bar imposed by sub-section (1) of Section 92 applied only when a party seeks to rely upon the document embodying the terms of the transaction. In that event the law declares that the nature and intent of the transaction must be gathered from the terms of the document and no evidence of any oral agreement or statement can be admitted as between the parties to such document for the purpose of contradicting or modifying its terms. This clause is not attracted when the case of a party is that the transaction recorded in the document was never intended to be acted upon between the parties and that the document is a sham. Such question arises when the party asserts that there was a different-transaction altogether and what is recorded in the document was intended to be of no consequence whatever. For that purpose oral evidence is admissible to show that the document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but that some other agreement altogether not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties. 19. When the transaction is unconscionable on the facts established on record and there is close relationship between vendor and vendee and the vendee is in a position to influence the will of the vendor, the plea of the vendor that the transaction intended was different than what is recorded as sale-deed, has to be accepted. 19. When the transaction is unconscionable on the facts established on record and there is close relationship between vendor and vendee and the vendee is in a position to influence the will of the vendor, the plea of the vendor that the transaction intended was different than what is recorded as sale-deed, has to be accepted. The burden shifts on vendee to establish that the transaction was not unconscionable or sham. The vendee could achieve the end in the present case by showing that the current market price was actually paid. In fact there is proof on record that the amount of Rs.4,000/- for sale was totally inadequate i.e., even less than 1/6 of market price, then current. 20. In view of these circumstances this Court finds that in reality it was not intended to be a transaction of sale. It was only intended to ensure repayment of loan of Rs.4,000/- by Janakdulari to defendants. The property was to be reconveyed on payment of this loan. In view of this finding both the Courts were justified on moudling the relief by ordering reconveyance of the disputed property to plaintiff by the defendants on receipt of Rs.4,000/- or on deposit of the same in the Court. These Courts held that 1/2 property belonged to Munnidevi because Rameshwar had entered into agreement. This Court find that Janakdulari was owner by purchase of entire land. She purported to convey the entire land to appellants as security for repayment of Rs.4,000/-. The Courts were, in facts and spirit, decreeing that whatever was conveyed by deed Ex.P-5. be reconveyed to plaintiff on payment of Rs.4,000/-i.e., for return of land. So the decree must be to this effect that the defendants shall convey the entire disputed property to Munnibai-plaintiff on payment of deposit of Rs.4,000/- by her, as that was real intended decree by Trial Court, if Munnibai had not been found to be owner of half. 21. In view of discussion above this appeal is dismissed as having no merit and decree passed by Trial Court and confirmed by first Appellate Court is amended to this extent that defendants/appellants shall reconvey the entire disputed land to plaintiff/respondent Munnibai on payment or deposit of Rs.4,000/-. On such payment, possession of entire suit land shall be given to plaintiff/respondent by appellants/defendants. The appellants shall pay costs of this appeal also. Final Result : Dismissed