Whether A Deed Is Of Absolute Transfer Or Mortgage By Conditional Sale? Intention Of Parties Determines: Supreme Court

Published by Admin on

Whether A Deed Is Of Absolute Transfer Or Mortgage By Conditional Sale? Intention Of Parties Determines

Case: Bhimrao Ramchandra Khalate (Deceased) vs. Nana dinkar Yadav (Tanpura)

Coram: Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna

Case No: CA 10197 OF 2010

Court Observation: “The intention of the parties has to be seen when the document is executed. It is not in dispute that the condition of retransfer is a part of the same document (Ex. 68). Such is the condition inserted by an amendment in the year 1929 expressed by the proviso of Section 58(c) of the Act…. Therefore, a reading of the document would show that the document was executed for the reason that the plaintiff has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000/- for his household expenses and the defendant is bound to retransfer the land if the amount is paid within one year. The advance of loan and return thereof are part of the same document which creates a relationship of debtor and creditor. Thus, it would be covered by proviso in Section 58(c) of the Act.”

“The suit for redemption can be filed within 30 years from the date fixed for redemption. The period of 30 years would commence on 22.2.1969 and the suit was filed in the year 1989, which is within the period of limitation”

“Section 63 of the Act contemplates that any accession by the mortgagee, during the continuance of the mortgage, the mortgagor shall on redemption be entitled to such accession in the absence of a contract to the contrary. Under Section 63(a) of the Act, the liability of mortgagor to pay for improvement will arise if the mortgagee had to incur the costs to preserve the property from destruction or deterioration or was necessary to prevent the security from becoming insufficient or being made in compliance with the lawful order of any public servant or public authority. None of the eventualities arose in the present case compelling the mortgagor to pay for the improvements if any carried out by the mortgagee. A mortgagee spends such money as is necessary for the preservation of the mortgaged property for destruction, forfeiture or sale; for supporting the mortgagor’s title to the property; for making his own title thereto good against the mortgagor; and when the mortgaged property is a renewable lease-hold, for the renewal of the lease, such expenditure incurred by the mortgagee can be added to the cost of improvements in the principal amount due. However, in the absence of any positive evidence of any improvement and the cost incurred, the defendants are not entitled to recover anything more than the mortgage amount. Since the possession was given to the mortgagee, he has enjoyed usufruct from the mortgage property which compensates not only of the user of the land but also improve16 ments made by him. The improvements were to enjoy the usufruct of the property mortgaged”

Previous Judgments

Should Disobedience Of Injunction Be ‘Wilful’ To Invoke Order 39 Rule 2A CPC? Supreme Court Doubts Its Earlier Judgment

Witness Cannot Be Prosecuted For Perjury U/s 193 CrPC For Mere Inconsistency In His Statements: Supreme Court

Entity Which Misuses Status Under Section 12AA Income Tax Act Not Entitled To Retain It: Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of Trust Registration

Writ Jurisdiction Not For Deciding ‘Hotly Disputed Questions Of Facts’, Reiterates Supreme Court

Lender Who Advanced Interest-Free Loans to Corporate Body is also A Financial Creditor; can Initiate CIRP: Supreme Court-Download Judgement

No Need To Examine Complainant Before Ordering Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC: Supreme Court

Bogus Voting & Booth Capturing Affects Rule Of Law & Democracy; Should Be Dealt With Iron Hands: Supreme Court


Leave a Reply

Hey, wait!

Don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter for weekly updates about our events, blogs and various opportunities.