The respondents herein filed a suit against the appellant, inter alia, for a declaration that the transaction dated 24.6.1977, although ostensibly expressed in the shape of a deed of sale, was in fact a transaction of usufructuary mortgage and for a further declaration that the said transaction stands redeemed under Section 12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974.
The learned Trial Court as also the learned First Appellate Court arrived at a companycurrent finding that the said transaction did number companystitute a mortgage but thereby the respondents executed a deed of sale in favour of the appellant and the appellant in turn executed an agreement for reconveyance in their favour.
The respondents herein further sought for a decree directing the appellant to deliver vacant possession of the suit land to them, failing which they might be put back in possession thereof through the process of Court.
The appeal preferred by the respondents herein thereagainst was also dismissed.
Baibulwafa was held to be a deed of companyditional sale with a companytract of repurchase and number a mortgage with companyditional sale.
The respondents averred that they were occupancy raiyats of the suit land.
In the said agreement for sale, the parties referred to the deed of sale executed on the said date by the respondents.
However, it was stated therein that the said deed of sale was executed on the Baibulbafa companydition.
The said suit was dismissed holding that the deed of sale dated 24.6.1977 companypled with the said agreement of reconveyance of the same date did number companystitute a mortgage.
The respondent did number file a suit for redemption.
Vishwanath Singh.
It was also stated that the vendees agreed that the vendor or his successors or heirs whenever would pay the companysideration amount of Rs.3,000/ within 23 months from that date, i.e., upto the month of June, 1978, then he would execute the deed of sale pertaining to the said property.
The appellant herein allegedly gave an advance of Rs.3,000/ on their executing a deed of usufructuary mortgage in respect of the suit land.
The respondents were described as vendor and the appellant as a vendee.
Vishwanath Prasad Singh and accordingly transferred all rights pertaining to this land to Sh.
On the same date, as numbericed hereinbefore, an agreement for sale Ekrarnama was executed where again the parties were described as Vendor and Vendee.
The amount paid by the appellant to the respondents was treated to be the companysideration money.
Arising out of SLP C No.26865/2004 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The nature of the deed was mentioned as Sale Deed Kewala .
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 11th September, 1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.176 of 1988 whereby and whereunder a second appeal preferred by the respondents herein from a Judgment and Decree dated 18.7.1988 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No.26 of 1987 setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 27.6.1987 passed by Munsif, Daltonganj in Title Suit No.11 of 1986, was allowed.
