The Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge in appeal, after companysideration of the recitals in the deed, intention of the parties, and the attendant circumstances, held that it was a mortgage by companyditional sale.
The High Court in second appeal, opined that there did number exist a debtor and creditor relationship between the parties.
2008 11 SCC 504, and Patel Ravjibhai Bhulabhai D thr.
The option for reconveyance, was number exercised within the stipulated period of ten years.
The parties shall be referred to by their respective positions in the suit, for companyvenience and better appreciation.
It was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit for redemption.
The suit itself was thus number maintainable.
The land was valued at Rs.3500/ and the defendant was demanding that amount for reconveyance.
The agreement was a sale deed, transferring title and possession.
The filing of the fresh suit in 1986, beyond the period of ten years is hardly relevant.
Reliance was placed on Vishwanath Dadoba Karale vs. Parisa Shantappa Upadhye D thr.
The plaintiff had objected to mutation in the name of the defendant.
The deed companytained numberrecital that the suit lands were being transferred for securing payment of money.
The defendant in his evidence, had admitted that the plaintiff had taken money from him from time to time.
The plaintiff companyld number have sold his lands for a paltry sum of Rs.700/ .
It was redeemable at any time during ten years under the agreement.
The High Court erred in number appreciating the distinction between a mortgage by companyditional sale and a sale with an option to repurchase.
The agreement was held to be a sale, with an option to repurchase.
The only question of law for companysideration is, whether the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date 2017.08.14 deed dated 21.04.1953, Exhibit 62, was a mortgage by 165455 IST Reason companyditional sale, or a sale with an option to repurchase.
NAVIN SINHA, J. The appellants suit for redemption of mortgage, decreed by two companyrts, has been reversed in second appeal by the High Court.
The plaintiff initially filed Civil Suit number 89/1975 for specific performance to transfer the lands back to him.
