MANU/SC/1332/2017

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1300 of 2009

Decided On: 24.10.2017

Appellants: Suraj Narain Kapoor and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Pradeep Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha

JUDGMENT

Navin Sinha, J.

1. The Plaintiff's suit for redemption of mortgage, decreed by the trial court and affirmed in first appeal, having been reversed by the High Court, the Plaintiff is in appeal. The parties shall be referred to by their respective position in the suit, for convenience.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the High Court grievously erred in reversing the concurrent findings of two courts that Exhibit-A1 was a mortgage by conditional sale, and not a sale deed with an option to repurchase. The intention of the parties to create a mortgage by conditional sale only is apparent from the right to redemption being incorporated in the same document, fulfilling the statutory requirement Under Section 58(C) of the Transfer of Property Act. Reservation of the right to redemption for five years only, was not relevant as the right would be co-extensive with the statutory period of 30 years.

3. Conversely the submission on behalf of the Respondents is that the High Court on an examination of Exhibit-A1 has rightly held that it was a sale with a condition for repurchase, and not mortgage by conditional sale. The recitals in the document were self-explanatory and did not evidence any mortgage or loan, much less to discharge any debt, or the relationship of debtor and creditor. Merely because there may have been an option for repurchase within 5 years incorporated in the same document, would not ipso fact confer on it the nature of a mortgage by conditional sale. The suit for redemption was also not filed within five years.

4. We have considered the submissions. The question whether a document is a mortgage by conditional sale, or a sale with an option to repurchase, is a vexed question to be determined in the facts of each case. Reference may appropriately be made to Bhoju Mandal v. Debnath Bhagat   MANU/SC/0333/1962 : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 82, observing as follows:

4. There is a clear legal distinction between the two concepts, a mortgage by conditional sale and a sale with a condition of re-purchase. The former is a mortgage, the relationship of debtor and creditor subsists and the right to redeem remains with the debtor. The latter is an out and out sale whereby the owner transfers all his rights in the property to the purchaser reserving a personal right of re-purchase. The question to which category a document belongs presents a real difficulty which can only be solved by ascertaining the intention of the parties on a consideration of the contents of a document and other relevant circumstances. Decided cases have laid down many tests to ascertain the intentions of the parties but they are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

5. The true nature of the document therefore has to be determined in the facts of each case, dependent on the nature of the recitals in the document, intention of the parties, coupled with othe........