ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. Shri Bansal is heard on the question of admission. 2. The judgment passed by learned two Courts below dismissing the suit of plaintiff has been made pivot by plaintiff by filing this Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. 3. A suit for declaration and injunction has been filed by plaintiff against the defendants with a prayer that the plot, which is the subject matter of the suit and the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint is in the ownership of the plaintiff and the defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff was in need of the money and, therefore, he took loan of Rs.2,000/- from the defendant No. 1-Smt. Munnibai @ Shantibai, who is the mother of the minor children defendants 2 and 3, namely, Kanhaiyalal and Satyanarayan. However, to secure the loan, a registered sale-deed (Ex.D/1) was executed on 29/7/ 1977 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 namely, Kanhaiyalal and Satyanarayan, who are the minor sons of defendant No. 1-Smt Munnibai @ Shantibai. According to the plaintiff, the execution of the sale-deed dated 29/7/1977 is only a shame transaction and it was never intended by the parties to be acted upon. Since the defendants are claiming the suit property of their own, the instant suit for declaration and injunction has been filed by the plaintiff. 4. The defendants by filing written statement refuted the plaint averments. 5. The learned Trial Court after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, came to hold that the transaction between the parties was shame and the sale-deed was never intended to be acted upon since there was a loan transaction between the parties has not been passed and, hence, dismissed the suit of plaintiff. 6. The appeal which was filed by the plaintiff before the learned First Appellate Court has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. 7. In this manner, this Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 8. I have heard Shri Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The appeal which was filed by the plaintiff before the learned First Appellate Court has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. 7. In this manner, this Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 8. I have heard Shri Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that right from very beginning the plaintiff has come forward with a case that the real intention between the parties was not of sale, but in order to secure the loan, which the plaintiff took from defendant No.1 -Smt. Munnibai, the sale-deed (Ex.D/ 1) was executed and, therefore, since defendant No.1-Smt. Munnibai did not appear in the witness-box, therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against her for the simple reason that what transaction took place between plaintiff and defendants is well within the knowledge of defendant No.1-Smt. Munnibai and plaintiff, because the other two defendants, who are the children of defendant No.1-Smt. Munnibai, were minors on the date of execution of this sale-deed. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another v. Induslnd Bank Ltd. and others, (2005) 2 SCC 217 as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in Kasturchand v. Kapurchand, 1975 JLJ 333 . 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant. I am of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. So far as non-examination of defendant No.1 Smt Munnibai and to draw adverse inference against the defendants is concerned, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant at the first blush appears to be quite attractive, but on deeper scrutiny found to be devoid of any substance. True, defendant No.1-Smt. Munnibai has not put her appearance as a witness in the case, however, on going through the findings recorded by learned two Courts beloiw particularly by learned First Appellate Court right from para 8 onwards of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that appelalant is a businessman and also an income tax payee. It is also borne out from the findings of learned First Appellate Court, which is based on correct appreciation of evidence, that the defendant No.1-Smt. Munnibai being the widow was not having sufficient means for her livelihood and to maintain her minor sons viz. It is also borne out from the findings of learned First Appellate Court, which is based on correct appreciation of evidence, that the defendant No.1-Smt. Munnibai being the widow was not having sufficient means for her livelihood and to maintain her minor sons viz. defendants 1 and 2 as well as her five daughters and, therefore, she was preparing papad and by working hard all these minor children were brought up by the widow defendant No.1-Munnibai and not only this she also got her daughters married. The learned First Appellate Court in very detail right from para 8 onwards of the impugned judgment after marshalling the evidence, came to hold that nothing has been borne out from the record that plaintiff was in need of money and, therefore, he took the loan of Rs. 2,000/- from the widow, who was fighting with her livelihood by labouring hard and she was in a position to give any loan. Hence, according to me, the learned two Courts below did not commit any error in holding that the sale-deed (Ex.D/1) Executed by plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that the transaction between the parties was loan transaction. The findings of leaned two Courts below are based on correct appreciation of evidence and are the pure findings of fact, which cannot be assailed in this Second Appeal. The decision of Supreme Court Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another (supra) as well as Division Bench decision of this Court Kasturchand (supra) are not applicable in the present factual scenario. 11. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed summarily.