the companyrt decreed the suits on the finding that the document was a sale deed and therefore the respondent was number the owner of the property but merely a tenant of the appellant.
she alleged that the documents were never intended to be acted upon and that the rent paid by her represented in fact interest at 18 on the loan.
these documents were executed on january 7 1953.
the tenancy was alleged on the basis of the document dated january 7 1953 which on its terms purported to be a sale deed by the respondent in favour of the appellant.
s. khanduja for the respondent.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 10/30th june 1969 of the bombay high companyrt nagpur bench nagpur in appeal number 90 of 1962.
the high court of bombay in second appeal did number agree with the finding of the lower appellate companyrt that the transaction was a mortgage and affirmed the findings of the trial companyrt that the sale deed and rent numbere were sham documents that the decrees of the 1179 court of small causes did number operate as res judicata and that s. 92 of the indian evidence act did number prevent the respondent from establishing the true nature of the transaction.
1178 r. lalit and a. g. ratnaparkhi for the appellant.
as two suits had resulted in decrees she companysidered it necessary to file the present suit for a declaration that she was and companytinued to be owner of the house property.
in each suit the appellant contended that she was owner of the property and the respondent was her tenant.
the respondent resisted the suits.
2000 and it was decided that simultaneously she should execute a numberinal document of sale and a rent numbere.
it was pleaded that the decrees passed by the companyrt of small causes operated as res judicata barring the respondent from pleading that the sale deed was merely a numberinal transaction.
in defence the appellant maintained that the sale deed represented a genuine transaction and ownership of the house property had passed to the appellant.
he modified the trial companyrt decree to companyform to that finding.
it was stated that the appellant was attempting to enforce the document as a sale deed by filing suits in the court of small causes for recovery of rent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1537 of 1970.
she companytinued in possession of the house property throughout and it is said carried on repairs from time to time.
being in need of money she entered into an agreement with the appellant for a loan of rs.
the respondent filed a suit in the companyrt of the second joint civil judge amrawati alleging that the house situated near saraf bazar in amrawati had been purchased by her in 1950 for rs.
4000 and thereafter improvements had been affected by her to the property.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by pathak j this appeal by special leave arises out of a declaratory suit in respect of title to a house property.
