JUDGMENT - BRAHME P.S., J:-This is an appeal by original defendant No. 1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 369 of 1984 challenging the judgment and decree passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Bhandara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1988 dated 25th October, 1989 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff directing the appellant-defendant No. 1 to deliver possession of the land bearing Gat No. 356, area 0.64 Hectares. 2. Respondent No. 1 Jadhavrao Sadashio Lanjewar, as a original plaintiff, filed the aforesaid civil suit on the averments in the plaint that, by virtue of sale deed dated 14th October, 1982 (Exh. 38), he purchased land admeasuring 0.64 hectare from Gat No. 366 of village Mohadi Khapa for a valuable consideration of Rs. 6,500/- from the original defendant No. 2 Nago Soma Patel. He was also put in possession of the said land by defendant No. 2 Nago. After taking possession, plaintiff cultivated the land in the year 1983 and his name has been recorded in the record of rights. However, taking advantage of absence of plaintiff at village Mohadi Khapa, original defendant No. 1 had illegally taken possession of the land. Plaintiff also asked defendant No. 1 to hand over possession. However, defendant continued to remain in possession and, therefore, plaintiff brought this suit for recovery of possession of land, so also for enquiry into mesne profit. 3. Original defendant No. 1 appellant resisted plaintiffs' claim by her written statement (Exh. 13) and inter alia contended that the suit land was owned by her husband deceased Tantu. Her husband had incurred loan of Rs. 500/- from one Tejram and for security of the loan, her husband had executed a false deed in favour of Tejram. She further contended that the loan of Rs. 500/- together with interest of Rs. 400/- was paid by Tantu to Tejram and the latter had agreed to destroy the sale deed. Taking advantage of the sale deed that remained with Tejram, it is contended that Tejram had executed a false sale deed in favour of original defendant No. 2 and the latter, in turn, executed the sale deed (Exh. 38) in favour of original plaintiff. As such, defendant No. 1 had denied that the plaintiff has become owner of the field by virtue of the sale deed (Exh. 38) executed by defendant No. 2. 38) in favour of original plaintiff. As such, defendant No. 1 had denied that the plaintiff has become owner of the field by virtue of the sale deed (Exh. 38) executed by defendant No. 2. It is alternative, defendant No. 2 contended that, neither Tejram nor defendant No. 2 Nago nor the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land at any point of time. It was defendant No. 1 who was in possession all along and during the life time of her husband and therefore, defendant contented that she has perfected her title by way of adverse possession and hence, she claimed that the suit be dismissed on that count. 4. It is significant to note that defendant No. 2 Nago did not contest the claim of plaintiff. On the other hand, he was supported the plaintiff and he has given evidence before the trial Court as a witness for plaintiff. 5. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence led before it, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the sale deed in his favour but the consideration shows therein has not been proved and therefore, no title in respect of the suit land passed or vested in plaintiff. The trial Court further held that throughout the suit land was in possession of defendant No. 1 alone and neither plaintiff nor defendant No. 2 was in possession thereof. The trial Court has also held that defendant No. 1 has become owner by adverse possession. Thus, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 6. The first Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1988, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit directing defendant No. 1 to deliver possession and also directed the trial Court to make an enquiry in respect of further mesne profit under Order 20, Rule 12(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Appellate Court found that plaintiff acquired title in respect of the suit land on the basis of sale deed (Exh. 38). In that, the Appellate Court has negatived the contentions of defendant No. 1 as also, the findings of the trial Court that the sale deed (Exh. 38) was executed without there being any passing of consideration by the plaintiff to defendant No. 2. 38). In that, the Appellate Court has negatived the contentions of defendant No. 1 as also, the findings of the trial Court that the sale deed (Exh. 38) was executed without there being any passing of consideration by the plaintiff to defendant No. 2. The Appellate Court negatived defendants' contention that she had perfected her title by way of adverse possession. The Appellate Court, on the basis of the evidence on record observed that defendant No. 1 failed to establish that the original transaction in respect of the suit land vis a vis defendants Tantu and Tejram was that of securing loan. The first Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the document that was executed by deceased Tantu in favour of Tejram was that of sale deed in respect of the suit land. 7. This Court, while admitting this appeal on 22-11-1990, formulated substantial questions of law on the points at ground Nos. A, B and C. 8. Heard Mr. Paliwal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant. He contended that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is, "Could the Appellate Court hold that the title of suit land is transferred by sale-deed, Exh. 38 from Nago to plaintiff by passing of consideration and its registration without setting aside the finding of the trial Court that Tejram original purchaser, Nago second purchaser and plaintiff third purchaser did not get legal title to the suit property"? He submitted that defendant No. 1 has contended and specifically pleaded that the real transaction between her husband Tantu and Tejram was that of advancement of loan and that, for the purpose of security only, the documents of Vikri Gahanpatra was executed by her husband in favour of Tejram. The trial Court has found that there was no sale deed executed by deceased Tantu in favour of Tejram as the transaction in reality was that of obtaining loan from Tejram. If that is so, Tejram did not get ownership in respect of the suit land and consequently, defendant No. 2 Nago and plaintiff did not get ownership in respect of the suit land, though sale deeds (Exh. 38 and 40) have been executed in their favour. If that is so, Tejram did not get ownership in respect of the suit land and consequently, defendant No. 2 Nago and plaintiff did not get ownership in respect of the suit land, though sale deeds (Exh. 38 and 40) have been executed in their favour. The learned Counsel vehemently contended that in absence of the document of sale deed in respect of the such land between deceased Tantu and Tejram, the first Appellate Court was totally in error in holding that the plaintiff has acquired title in respect of the suit land on the basis of sale deed Exh. 38. That is much more so, because the first Appellate Court has not set aside findings of the trial Court wherein the trial Court has held that no title has been acquired by the plaintiff on the basis of sale deed Exh. 38. It is also submitted that it was for the plaintiff to bring on record the document of sale deed alleged to have been executed by deceased Tantu in favour of Tejram. The learned Counsel also submitted that defendant No. 1 was in possession of the land and there is no iota of evidence to show that Nago and after him, plaintiff was in possession in pursuance of the sale deed executed. He, therefore, urged that the appeal be allowed and the judgment of the Appellate Court be set aside and the judgment of the trial Court be restored wherein the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed. 9. Mr. Vyawahare, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 original plaintiff, submitted that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal inasmuch as while arriving at conclusion by the first Appellate Court reasons have been assigned for holding that plaintiff has substantiated his case in respect of ownership of the suit land and defendant No. 1 has candidly admitted that her husband had executed the sale deed in favour of Tejram. He, therefore, pointed out that the first Appellate Court has consequently set aside that findings of the trial Court and held that plaintiff has established his title over the suit land. He submitted that it was, in fact, for defendant No. 1 who contended that the real transaction was that of securing loan on the land, to get the document that came to be executed by her husband Tantu in favour of Tejram. He submitted that it was, in fact, for defendant No. 1 who contended that the real transaction was that of securing loan on the land, to get the document that came to be executed by her husband Tantu in favour of Tejram. If really had there been such document executed purporting to be Vikri Gahanpatra, defendant would have certainly brought the same on record. But, defendant No. 1 has candidly admitted in her pleadings that sale deed was executed and it was contended further that, in respect of repayment of loan, her husband believed in the words of Tejram that the document would be destroyed and plaintiff is taking advantage of the fact that the document remained with Tejram who did not destroy the same. There is no reason why defendant No. 1 did not examine Tejram. The learned Counsel for respondent also referred to variations between the pleadings and evidence as to repayment of loan as contended by defendant No. 1. The first Appellate Court has also dealt with that aspect of the matter and came to the conclusion of inconsistency therein created about as to veracity of the claim in that regard. It is submitted that defendant No. 1 has utterly failed to establish that there was loan transaction for which document of sale deed was executed. In the absence of that, there is no locus standi for defendant No. 1 as third party to question validity and legality of the sale deed (Exh. 38). She cannot contend that no consideration for the sale deed had passed from plaintiff to defendant No. 2. The trial Court was absolutely in error in holding that plaintiff, though sale deed was in his favour, did not acquire title over the suit land because no consideration under the sale deed has been received by the vendor Nago. It is submitted that this conclusion drawn by the trial Court was against the evidence on record. The sale deed (Exh. 38) was a registered document which incorporates receipt of consideration. That apart, Nago has not denied to have received consideration under the sale deed (Exh. 38). He has categorically admitted that he has received consideration of Rs. 6,500/- under the sale deed from plaintiff. That is also submitted by plaintiff's witness Jagorao. Therefore, it is submitted that the first Appellate Court was perfectly right in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. That apart, Nago has not denied to have received consideration under the sale deed (Exh. 38). He has categorically admitted that he has received consideration of Rs. 6,500/- under the sale deed from plaintiff. That is also submitted by plaintiff's witness Jagorao. Therefore, it is submitted that the first Appellate Court was perfectly right in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal and as such, the same would be dismissed. 10. At the outset, on the basis of the record and evidence, it is convenient to make reference to the admitted facts. It is admitted that Tantu, husband of appellant-defendant No. 1 was original owner of the suit land. Deceased Tantu had executed a sale deed in favour of Tejram in respect of the suit land. It is further admitted that Tejram, in turn executed the sale deed (Exh. 40) in favour of defendant No. 2 Nago and defendant No. 2, later on, executed the sale deed (Exh. 38) in favour of the present plaintiff. It is true that in the trial Court the document executed by deceased Tantu in favour of Tejram was not brought on record. 11. It was the contention of defendant No. 1 that the real transaction between her husband and Tejram was that of money lending whereunder her husband has secured loan of Rs. 500/- from Tejram and for the security of that, sale deed has been executed in favour of Tejram. It is her further contention that the said loan amount was repaid by her husband but the document remained with Tejram. Before the trial Court, a contention was raised that as the document was for security for the loan taken by Tantu, no title in the land passed to Tejram and consequently, plaintiff also did not get title over the suit land in respect of the sale deed being executed in his favour by Nago. It is true that the trial Court has given a finding that plaintiff has failed to establish title over the suit land inasmuch as no document executed by deceased Tantu in favour of Tejram was brought on record. That apart, the trial Court has supported its finding on the basis of the contention of defendant No. 1 that the real transaction was that of securing loan and the loan has been repaid by deceased Tantu. 12. That apart, the trial Court has supported its finding on the basis of the contention of defendant No. 1 that the real transaction was that of securing loan and the loan has been repaid by deceased Tantu. 12. The first Appellate Court, while reappreciating the evidence, independently came to the conclusion that the evidence of defendant No. 1 as to repayment of the loan is inconsistent. That evidence has been discarded. There was no trustworthy evidence to establish that the real transaction between deceased Tantu and Tejram was that of securing loan for which the document of sale deed was executed. The first Appellate Court also observed that it was for defendant No. 1 to bring on record the document that was executed by her husband in favour of Tejram. The Appellate Court also took into consideration the fact that defendant No. 1 candidly admitted that the document that was executed by Tantu in favour of Tejram was that of sale deed. It is significant to note that while taking plea of adverse possession, defendant No. 1 has specifically contended in her written statement that, in spite of sale deed being executed by deceased Tantu, Tejram and Nago in favour of plaintiff, defendant No. 1 continued her possession in respect of the suit land and she has perfected title by adverse possession for long standing 20 years. I have already pointed out that the defendant No. 1 has, in clear terms, admitted that the document of sale deed was executed by her husband in favour of Tejram. Therefore, now defendant No. 1 cannot contend that there was document of Vikri Gahanpatra executed in favour of Tejram by her husband. That apart, it was for defendant No. 1 to establish that the real transaction between her husband and Tejram was that of money lending and under the garb of sale deed or document of Vikri Gahanpatra, her husband secured loan of Rs. 500/-. In absence of that, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court holding that plaintiff has acquired title in respect of the suit land by virtue of sale deed (Exh. 38). 13. There is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the first Appellate Court has not assigned any reason for setting aside the finding in respect of acquisition of title by the plaintiff. 38). 13. There is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the first Appellate Court has not assigned any reason for setting aside the finding in respect of acquisition of title by the plaintiff. After careful consideration of the reasoning given by the first Appellate Court, particularly in para No. 11 of the judgment, it is clearly found that the Court has virtually set aside the findings of the trial Court and on the basis of that, consequently, arrived at the finding that plaintiff has established his title over the suit land. 14. Much has been made by the learned Counsel for the appellant in respect of plaintiff not acquiring title over the land because of not establishing that defendant No. 2 Nago has received consideration of Rs. 6,500/- under the sale deed (Exh. 38). In fact, the trial Court has recorded finding that plaintiff has not acquired title over the suit land only on the ground that the plaintiff has not established by evidence that consideration of Rs. 6,500/- was paid by him to defendant No. 2 Nago. This finding was arrived at by the trial Court on the basis of admissions given by defendant No. 2, Nago, wherein he has denied his signature on the sale deed (Exh. 38) and other documents. The first Appellate Court has dealt with this aspect very categorically and found that defendant No. 2 Nago has admitted in his evidence that consideration of amount of Rs. 6,500/- was received by him under the sale deed (Exh. 38) from the plaintiff. It is to be remembered that defendant No. 2 is not contesting or controverting the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of sale deed (Exh. 38). The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Vyawahare was right that defendant No. 1 has no locus standi to question the sale deed or validity of the sale deed on the ground that no consideration under the sale deed has actually passed to the vendor i.e. defendant No. 2. In fact, once the sale deed is admitted by defendant No. 2, the title in respect of the suit land virtually passes to the plaintiff. The question whether the vendor i.e. defendant No. 2 has received consideration under the sale deed is immaterial. In fact, once the sale deed is admitted by defendant No. 2, the title in respect of the suit land virtually passes to the plaintiff. The question whether the vendor i.e. defendant No. 2 has received consideration under the sale deed is immaterial. Atleast defendant No. 1 cannot question the title or passing of title vis a vis the suit land on the ground that no consideration was passed by plaintiff to defendant No. 2. That apart, as stated earlier, there is evidence consistent with the recitals in the sale deed (Exh. 38) showing that defendant No. 2 has received amount of Rs. 6,500/- as consideration under the sale deed. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court that plaintiff did not acquire title in the suit land because of non-payment of consideration amount to defendant No. 2 was absolutely erroneous and the Appellate Court was absolutely right in reversing that finding and holding that the plaintiff has acquired title vis a vis the suit land on the basis of sale deed (Exh. 38). As the matter of fact, it appears to me that the question of plaintiff's title over the suit land was not at controversy between the parties. Defendant No. 1 did not challenge plaintiff's title on the ground that plaintiff did not pay consideration of Rs. 6,500/- under the sale deed (Exh. 38). Therefore, the appellant's challenge to the decree on that count does not survive. There is no substance and merit in the appeal. I hold that, in fact, no substantial question of law is involved. The substantial questions of law formulated by the appellant does not survive. The appeal, therefore, merits no consideration at all. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. -----