Ramachandra Sakharam Mehta (dead) thr. LRs. Vs. Raman Bandhu Mehta & Another.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2191 of 1980
Petitioner: Ramachandra Sakharam Mehta (dead) thr. LRs.
Respondent: Raman Bandhu Mehta & Another.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2191 of 1980
Judges: V.N. KHARE & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 17, 2000
Head Note:
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 58 – Mortgage – Document showing to be an outright sale with right to repurchase. Held that on perusal of document, it is found to be not a mortgage with conditional sale but an outright sale with right to repurchase. High Court orders affirmed and appeal dismissed. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This is the plaintiffs’ appeal. The plaintiffs filed a suit for redemption of mortgage. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the document relied upon by the plaintiffs was not a mortgage by conditional sale, but is an outright sale deed with a right of repurchase. The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. However, the High Court in second appeal, set aside the judgment of the first Appellate Court and restored the judgment of the trial court. It is against the said judgment, the plaintiffs are in appeal before us.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants urged that document Ext. 65, in fact, is a mortgage by conditional sale and, therefore, the High Court committed error in holding that the document is an outright sale with a right to repurchase. No doubt, the question whether a document is mortgage deed or an outright sale with a right to repurchase, is a question of law. We, therefore, perused Ext. 65. On perusal of the said document, we are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that Ext. 65 is an outright sale with a right to repurchase. We, therefore, find no error in the judgment of the High Court. Hence, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. This is the plaintiffs’ appeal. The plaintiffs filed a suit for redemption of mortgage. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the document relied upon by the plaintiffs was not a mortgage by conditional sale, but is an outright sale deed with a right of repurchase. The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. However, the High Court in second appeal, set aside the judgment of the first Appellate Court and restored the judgment of the trial court. It is against the said judgment, the plaintiffs are in appeal before us.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants urged that document Ext. 65, in fact, is a mortgage by conditional sale and, therefore, the High Court committed error in holding that the document is an outright sale with a right to repurchase. No doubt, the question whether a document is mortgage deed or an outright sale with a right to repurchase, is a question of law. We, therefore, perused Ext. 65. On perusal of the said document, we are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that Ext. 65 is an outright sale with a right to repurchase. We, therefore, find no error in the judgment of the High Court. Hence, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
