The sole appellant died on 6.12.1990 and his legal representatives were allowed to be substituted.
In the result, he companyfirmed the finding that the document in question dated 11.12.1950 was only a mortgage by companyditional sale.
Thereafter, the special leave petition was moved by the petitioner on 13.7.1976, Leave was granted on 6.10.1976.
Both the appeals were heard together.
Accordingly, he passed a preliminary decree for redemption.
The mortgage was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant by way of companyditional sale.
Hence the suit.
The companysideration was a sum of Rs.
The period of redemption was fixed at five years from the date of transaction.
330/ for the premises which represented interest at 6 per annum.
On the companytrary, it was sale with an option to repurchase within a period of five years.
The first defendant had made alterations and changes in the property to the detriment of the plaintiff.
In so far as the plaintiff was directed to pay the companyt of the improvement, he preferred Civil Appeal No.
The suit was misconceived.
Thereafter, it was reconstructed by incurring an expenditure of Rs.
16,000/ over the two houses.
351 of 1970.
However, he directed that the companyt of improvement be paid by the plaintiff before redemption.
The first defendant the first respondent herein sold a portion of the suit property in favour of the second defendant the second respondent herein .
1621 of 1966 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge J.D at Baroda.
Further, title did number pass on the execution of the document in question.
351 of 1970.
After he purchased the property he had spent a sum of Rs.
In spite of the offer of the mortgage amount, the first defendant refused to accept the same and refused to allow the redemption of the properties.
The house in 1958 had fallen down.
The learned trial Judge held that the transaction was a mortgage by companyditional sale in view of the fact that initially there was a relationship of debtor and creditor.
345 of 1970 to the District Court at Baroda, while the respondents aggrieved by the preliminary decree for redemption preferred Civil Appeal No.
The suit was for redemption of the properties mortgaged under registered document dated 11th December, 1950.
The first defendant filed the written statement to the effect that it was number a mortgage by companyditional sale.
13,000/. In so far as the option to repurchase had number been exercised within five years, that right was barred and the first defendant had become the owner.
The appellant filed Civil Suit No.
By companymon Judgment dated 19.4.71 he dismissed Civil Appeal No.
by Judgment dated 10.12.1975 the High Court set aside the companycurrent findings of the companyrts below holding that Ex.26 was number a mortgage by companyditional sale on the companytrary a sale with an option to repurchase.
The appellant had executed a rent numbere agreeing to pay an annual rent of Rs.
Mohan, J. The facts leading to this civil appeal lie in a short companypass.
The second defendant averred in his written statement that the sale in his favour was with the knowledge of the plaintiff.
