JUDGMENT T.P. Sharma, J. 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Appellants have challenged legality & propriety of the judgment & decree dated 30-4-93 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 21 -A/87 reversing the judgment & decree dated 14-7-87 passed by the 4th Civil Judge Class-11, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 135A/82, whereby learned Civil Judge Class-II has decreed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 2. The present appeal is admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Court below was right in holding that the suit was not maintainable on account of the order of the S.D.O. Ex.P-6 passed under Act No. 3 of 1977 even though the provisions of Section 4 and 5 were not followed by him? (ii) Whether the Court below was right in holding that the suit was barred by time even though such a plea was not taken by the Defendant? 3. As per pleadings of the parties, original Plaintiff Chhotu (since deceased) predecessor-in-title of the Appellants herein was owner of the property area measuring 3 acres situate at Village Dongri, Block Bilha, District Bilaspur; he was in need of money as such, he mortgaged Ms property by executing registered deed in the style of sale deed on 30-1-75; and obtained loan of Rs. 1,000/- from Respondents No. l to 3 herein. Possession was delivered to Respondent No. l Ganga Prasad for four years in lieu of interest, but Respondent No. 1 has sold the property to Respondents No. 2 & 3 and, therefore, Chhotu has filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. By filing separate written statements, Respondents No. 1 to 3 have contested the claim and had specifically alleged that Respondent No. 1 has purchased the property from Chhotu, he has not mortgaged the property of Chhotu and he has not obtained possession on the same day as per the claim of Chhotu and the transaction was barred under Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). Chhotu has filed petition under the provisions of the Act, same was dismissed and, therefore, suit in the present shape is not maintainable. Chhotu has filed petition under the provisions of the Act, same was dismissed and, therefore, suit in the present shape is not maintainable. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Civil Judge Class-U has decreed the suit, same was challenged before the lower appellate Court and by reversing the judgment & decree of the trial Court, the lower appellate Court has dismissed the suit filed on behalf of Chhotu. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgment & decree impugned and records of the Courts below. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued that transaction between Chhotu & Respondent No. 1 was not hit by the provisions of the Act and, therefore, any order passed under the said Act does not create bar for filing civil suit. Even otherwise, during the pendency of civil suit, Chhotu has filed the aforesaid application and the competent authority by passing order Ex.P-6 has clearly held that the transaction is not hit by the provisions of the Act which also confirms that civil suitfiled on behalf of Chhotu was maintainable before the civil Court Learned Counsel further argued that as per pleadings of Chhotu in the plaint, both the parties entered into contract on 30-1 -75, land was given to Respondent No. 1 for four years for taking crop in lieu of interest, and Chhotu has filed civil suit on 30.11.81 within three years from expiry of four years from the date of alleged transaction. Therefore, the suit was within limitation, but the lower appellate Court without any pleading and claim has held that the suit is barred by limitation. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 3 opposed the appeal and submitted that as per pleadings of the Plaintiff in his plaint, the suit was barred in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Plaintiff has specifically pleaded in paras 5 & 6 of his plaint that the transaction was "loan transaction". He has filed application before the Sub Divisional Officer for declaration of transaction void, but the same was dismissed vide order Ex.P-6 and, therefore, the Plaintiff was debarred from filing or continuing civil suit against the Defendants. Secondly, the Plaintiff was under obligation to file suit for declaration of alleged deed dated 30-1 -75 as mortgage and for recovery of possession. Secondly, the Plaintiff was under obligation to file suit for declaration of alleged deed dated 30-1 -75 as mortgage and for recovery of possession. During the subsistence of said document, Chhotu or the Appellants herein were not entitled to file any suit for declaration of title. Therefore, the Plaintiff was under obligation to file suit for declaration within three years from the said transaction, but the Plaintiff has not filed suit within three years and the suit was hopelessly time barred. The lower appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit, as the suit is hit by the provisions of the Act and the same is time barred. 7. In order to attract the provisions of the Act, parties are required to prove that the person who has borrowed loan was "holder of agricultural land" and that the transaction was "prohibited transaction" under the Act in terms of Section 4 of the Act. The term "holder of agricultural land" has been defined in Section 2 (c) of the Act which reads thus: (c) "holder of agricultural land" in the weaker sections of the people means a holder of land used for purposes of Agriculture not exceeding eight hectares of unirrigated land or four hectares of irrigated land within the State whether as a Bhumiswami or an occupancy tenant or a Government lessee either in any one or all of the capacities together within the meaning of the Code. Explanation.: One hectare of irrigated land shall be equal to two hectares of unirrigated land and vice versa. Explanation.: One hectare of irrigated land shall be equal to two hectares of unirrigated land and vice versa. The term "prohibited transaction of loan" has also been defined in Section 2(f) of the Act which reads thus, (f) "prohibited transaction of loan" means a transaction in which a lender of money advances loan to a holder of agricultural land against security of his interest in land, whether at the time of advancing the loan or at any time thereafter during the currency of the loan in any of the following modes, namely: (i) agreement to sell land with or without delivery of possession; (ii) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession accompanied by separate agreement to re-sell it; (iii) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession with a distinct oral understanding that the sale shall not be acted upon if the loan is repaid; (iv) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession with a condition incorporated in the sale deed to re-sell it on re-payment of the loan; (v) transaction in any modes other than those specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) affecting interest in land including a fraudulent transaction or a transaction designed to defeat the provisions of any law regulating money lending or interest, for the time being in force, and includes all these transactions in which a lender of money has after the appointed day but on or before the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette, obtained possession of land of the holder of agricultural land through court or by force or otherwise or obtained a decree for such possession towards satisfaction of loan; Prohibited transactions have been protected in accordance with Section 4 of the Act which reads thus, 4. All prohibited transactions of loan to be subject to protection and relief under this Act.: It is hereby declared that all claims in relation to a prohibited transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter but on or before the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other enactment for the time being in force or any decree or order, if any, of any court or authority be subject to protection and relief in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Section 14 of the Act creates bar of jurisdiction of civil courts which reads thus, 14. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts.: Subject to provisions of Section 11, no civil court shall have any jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Sub Divisional Officer or the Collector. 8. Respondent No. 1 has pleaded and claimed that the transaction was prohibited transaction within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Act. In these circumstances, Respondent No. 1 was under obligation to prove the fact that Plaintiff Chhotu was "holder of agricultural land" and the transaction was "prohibited transaction of loan". In order to prove the fact that Chhotu was "holder of agricultural land", Respondent No. 1 was required to prove that Chhotu was holding agricultural land not exceeding eight hectares of un-irrigated land or four hectares of irrigated land within the State whether as a Bhumiswami or an occupancy tenant or a Government lessee, but Respondent No. 1 has not examined any witness or has not filed any document in support of such claim. In absence of such evidence it is difficult to hold that Chhotu was holder of agricultural land within the meaning of Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act and that the transaction was prohibited transaction within the meaning of Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act. 9. Original Plaintiff Chhotu had filed application under the provisions of the Act, same was decided by the competent authority vide Ex.P-6 that the transaction was not prohibited transaction and the application filed on behalf of Chhotu was dismissed. Definitely, the finding recorded by the competent authority is final in accordance with Section 9 of the Act which clearly reveals that the transaction is not prohibited transaction. Therefore, Chhotu was competent to file suit before civil Court and the suit was maintainable. 10. In the circumstances, substantial question of law No. (i) formulated for the decision of this appeal is decided as negative. 11. Therefore, Chhotu was competent to file suit before civil Court and the suit was maintainable. 10. In the circumstances, substantial question of law No. (i) formulated for the decision of this appeal is decided as negative. 11. As regards the question of limitation, as per pleadings of the Plaintiff, Respondent No. 1 was under obligation to return possession after four years from 30-1 -75 as the transaction was mortgage transaction, but Respondent No. 1 has failed to return possession after four years; then cause of action also arose when Respondent No. 1 sold the property to Respondents No. 2 & 3 on 12-7-78 & 24-3-81, respectively. Original Plaintiff Chhotu has filed suit within three years from 30-1-79. In case of mortgage, limitation of suit for recovery of possession is twelve years when the mortgagee becomes entitled for possession, in accordance with Article 63 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Even otherwise, as per pleadings of the plaint, the Plaintiff has filed suit within three years after completion of four years from the date of transaction and the suit was within limitation. 12. Consequently, substantial question of law No. (ii) is also decided as negative. 13. Original Plaintiff Chhotu has filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession. During the subsistence of transaction of mortgage, the Plaintiff was entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Virtually, the Plaintiff was under obligation to file suit for declaration of the alleged sale deed as void, to declare the deed as mortgage deed and for recovery of possession. The deed was not void but was voidable and the Plaintiff, who was party to the deed, was having option to declare the deed as void, unless the deed is declared void same was valid. Therefore, the Plaintiff was also under obligation to value the suit as per the amount of deed and was required to pay ad volerum court fees, but for the reasons best known to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has neither valued the suit nor paid the court fees, nor has claimed declaration of deed as mortgage and for recovery of possession. 14. In these circumstances, even after decision on the substantial questions of law in favour of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff or the Appellants herein are not entitled for any decree or any relief against the Respondents. 15. 14. In these circumstances, even after decision on the substantial questions of law in favour of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff or the Appellants herein are not entitled for any decree or any relief against the Respondents. 15. Consequently, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. 16. Advocate fees as per schedule. 17. Decree be drawn up accordingly.