A plea of suit to be barred by limitation was also raised.
It was alleged that defendant No.1 has already sold the suit land to defendant No.2 on 25.09.1986 by sale deed for companysideration.
It was alleged that the mortgage was created by the plaintiff of his suit land in favour of defendant No.1 only by way of security to secure payment of loan amount and in terms of companydition of the deed, defendant No.1 was to enjoy the fruits of suit land for a period of 5 years and within the said period, the plaintiff was to return Rs.1500/ to defendant No.1 and, in turn, defendant No.1 was to redeem the mortgage to the plaintiff.
This gave rise to filing of the Civil Suit by the plaintiff on 19.09.1987 against the original defendant No.1 and the appellant herein who, as mentioned above, is the purchaser of the suit land.
Against the order in review petition and the judgment in second appeal, defendant No.2 filed these appeals by way of special leave petitions before this Court.
It was alleged that document in question Ex.
2 vide sale deed dated 25.09.1986 is bad in law and number binding on the plaintiff and 3 for recovery of possession of the suit land from the defendants.
P 1 is number a mortgage deed but in substance a sale deed on the strength of which he has become the exclusive owner.
387 of 2011 and the final judgment and order dated 25.07.2011 in R.S.A. No.1253 of 2005 by which the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein and set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge Sr.
The High Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law Whether the interpretation placed by the first Appellate Court as the suit document to hold that it is number a mortgage by companyditional sale is proper?
Defendant No.1 sent a reply to the numberice on 13.08.1987.
P 1 is of dated 28.07.1969.
The effect of the decree passed in this case is that the original plaintiff, number represented by his legal representatives respondent Nos.1 to 5 are required to return Rs.1500/ to the original defendant No.
The appellant is defendant No.2 whereas respondent Nos.
He denied the plaintiffs offer and companytended therein that the document dated 28.07.1969 Ex.
P 1 is a mortgage by companyditional sale and number a sale deed.
The Trial Court framed issues on the basis of pleadings.
It was held that the document dated 28.07.1969 Ex.
P 1 is number a mortgage deed as described by the plaintiff in the numberice but it is in substance a sale deed out and out in relation to the suit land executed by the plaintiff in his favour for Rs.1500/ pursuant to which defendant No.1 was also placed in possession of the suit land as owner.
Heard Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Trideep Pais, learned companynsel for respondents.
Since during the pendency of the litigation, original defendant No.
It was held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim redemption of the mortgage by paying the mortgage money to defendant No.1 and seek restoration of the suit land from the defendants.
It was also held that the suit is barred by limitation.
Whether the finding of the first Appellate Court that even if it is companystrued as a mortgage by companyditional sale that the suit is barred by law of limitation is false?
Defendant No.1 agreed and accordingly gave Rs.1500/ to the plaintiff by way of loan.
1 transferred the suit land to the appellant defendant No.
The plaintiff companytended that the Ex.
6 to 11 are the legal representatives of original defendant No.
It was alleged that the plaintiff offered Rs.1500/ to defendant No.1 but he declined and on the other hand asserted his right of ownership over the suit land and hence need to file the civil suit arose and seek aforementioned reliefs against the defendants in relation to the suit land.
P 1 is a mortgage deed pursuant to which plaintiff had delivered the possession of the suit land to defendant No.1 for a period of 5 years on taking loan of Rs.1500/ from defendant No.1.
In order to secure the repayment, the plaintiff on request made by defendant No.1 executed a document on 28.07.1969 Ex P 1 in favour of defendant No.1 and got the same registered with the sub Registrar, Kanakpura.
By impugned order, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment decree of the first Appellate Court and restored the judgment decree of the Trial Court.
The plaintiff companytended that in terms of the companyditions of Ex.
1 respondent Nos.6 11 are required to execute the sale deed by retransferring the suit land to the plaintiff respondent Nos.1 5 and restore them the possession of the suit land.
Felt aggrieved, the plaintiff filed Second Appeal before the High Court out of which this appeal arises.
P 1 is number a mortgage deed but it is in the nature of a companyditional sale deed.
Defendant No.1 filed the written statement and denied the plaintiffs claim.
It is governed by Article 61 a of the Limitation Act which prescribes limitation of 30 years when right to redeem accrues.
1 in the absence of any companytract to the companytrary in this behalf between the parties.
In the light of these findings, the plaintiffs suit stood dismissed.
It was held that the suit was filed within time.
The parties adduced evidence.
By order dated 18.04.2012, the review petition was dismissed.
1, number represented by his legal representatives Respondent Nos.6 11 and in turn, defendant No.
He, therefore, approached the original defendant No.1 B.M. Narayana Shetty and requested him to give some money to overcome the financial crisis faced by him during that time.
2 appellant herein .
We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issues involved in these appeals.
During the pendency of the suit, both plaintiff and defendant No.1 died and, therefore, their respective legal representatives were brought on record to companytinue the lis.
In this case, it was accrued on 27.07.1974 whereas the suit was filed on 19.09.1987.
Against the judgment in second appeal, defendant No.2 filed review petition before the High Court.
It was alleged that the Ex.
The Trial Court by its judgment decree dated 30.06.2000 decreed the plaintiffs suit.
In terms of the companyditions, five years expired on 27.07.1974.
The defendants felt aggrieved, filed first appeal before the Additional Civil Judge Sr.
By judgment decree dated 18.02.2005, the first Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment decree of the Trial Court.
It was alleged that since the plaintiff failed to companye forward to pay the loan amount to defendant No.1 on the expiry of 5 years, he lost the right to get the suit land restored in his name.
He reiterated his stand taken by him in reply to legal numberice.
On 30.06.1987, the plaintiff sent a legal numberice to defendant No.1 and offered to repay Rs.1500/ to him with a further request to redeem the suit land in his favour in terms of the companyditions of Ex.
It was held that the document dated 28.07.1969 Ex.
It was companytended that defendant No.1, in the meantime, on 25.09.1986 sold the suit land to the appellant herein defendant No.2 by executing the deed of sale for companysideration.
P 1, he delivered possession of the suit land to defendant No.1 for a period of 5 years to enable defendant No.1 to reap the fruits of the suit land and on repaying Rs.1500/ within five years, restore the possession of the suit land by redeeming the mortgage.
The original plaintiff M.N. Channabasappa was the owner of the suit land described in detail in schedule to the plaint .
The suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge Jr. Division at Kanakapura for claiming reliefs namely 1 redemption of the mortgage of the suit land in plaintiffs favour 2 for a declaration that the sale made by defendant No.1 of the suit land in favour of defendant No.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
1 for purchase of the suit land has become entitled to receive back the entire sum from defendant No.
These appeals are filed by defendant No.2 against the order dated 18.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.P. No.
1 respondent Nos.6 11 .
P 1 was essentially a mortgage deed executed by him in favour of defendant No.1 by way of security for repayment of the loan given to him by defendant No.1.
He fell in need of money in 1969.
1 to 5 are the legal representatives of original plaintiff and respondent Nos.
2 for Rs.30,000/ , therefore, he, as a subsequent transferee of the suit land, has number steped into the shoes of original defendant No.
Defendant No.1 was also placed in possession of the suit property pursuant to the document.
Division , Ramnagaram in R.A. No.35 of 2000 and restored the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 passed by the Civil Judge Jr.Division Kanakapura in O.S. No.152 of 1987.
1 in the civil suit out of which these appeals arise.
