C. CHERIATHAN versus P. NARAYANAN EMBRANTHIRI

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1239 · Decided: 18-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 17 S.C.R. 1239 
C. CHERIATHAN 
A 
II. 
~ 
P. NARAYANAN EMBRANTHIRI 
(Civil Appeal No.7400 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 18, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Deeds and Documents -
Conveyance deed -
Interpretation of - Held: Intention of the parties must be 
gathered from the document itself but therefor circumstances c 
attending thereto would also be relevant; particularly when 
relationship between the parties is in question - For said 
purpose, all parts of the deed should be read in their entirety 
- On facts, the deed in question was an absolute conveyance 
with condition of repurchase and not a mortgage with D 
conditional sale - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s.58(c). 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
? 
present appeal was as to whether the deed in question 
entered into between respondent vendor and appellant 
vendee was an absolute conveyance with a condition of E 
repurchase or a mortgage with conditional sale. 
_ .... 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. A document must be read in its entirety. 
When character of a document is in question, although 
the heading thereof would not be conclusive, it plays a F 
., 
significant role. Intention of the parties must be gathered 
-l 
from the document itself but therefor circumstances 
attending thereto would also be relevant; particularly 
when the relationship between the parties is in question. 
For the said purpose, it is essential that all parts of the 
G 
deed should be read in their entirety. [Para 9) (1245-D] 
P.S. Ramakrishna Reddy v. M.K. Bhagyalakshmi & Anr. 
.f 
(2007) 10 SCC 231 and State Bank of India & Anr. v. Mula 
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 293, relied on. 
1239 
H 
1240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
2.1. The deed in question is said to be a deed of sale. 
The source of title has been disclosed. What was sought 
to be· conveyed thereby was the leasehold interest. 
-~ 
Assignment was in respect of the vendor's one half share 
in the property. Possession of the properties had t>,een 
B handed over. A stipulation was made in the deed that the 
vendor shall repurchase the same at his expenses within 
a period of three years from the date of execution thereof. 
He acknowledg.ed receipt of sale consideration of 
Rs.2,000/- in cash. The vendor relinquished all his right 
J.. 
c 
over the scheduled property. However, the 'nature of 
assignment was sought to be clarified as the words "till 
the period is over" and "efflux of time and thereafter as 
an absolute sale" are used. It is significant that thereby 
the vendee in terms of the said instrument became 
entitled to attorn to the landlord by paying stipulated rent 
D evidently as a tenant and not as a mortgagee. The vendor 
accepted that he would have no right to deal with the 
, 
I-"
property in any manner. The reason why the' original deed 
l 
j 
T 
of sale had not been handed over was also explained. 
"""' 
j 
Declaration has been made that no encumbrances had 
t 
E been created in respect of the vendor's share in the 
property. [Para 11] [1245-G-H; 1246-A-C] 
)'; 
2.2. By reason of the said deed only half of the right 
\ 
of the vendor was sought to be assigned. Appellant had 
already acquired the right, title and interest in respect of 
F the other half of the property. As the word ·•repurchase' 
has been used, the respondent was aware that he has 
... 
to repurchase the transferred property. What would be 
,.+-
the consideration for repurchase has not been stated. 
' ,-
The time for repurchase, however, has been specified, 
G namely, three years. No evidence has been brought on 
record to show that any relationship of creditor and 
borrower had come into being. As the parties were 
[ 
related to each other, it is difficult to conceive that the 
other half of the property would be subject to mortgage 
+ \ 
and not a sale. Also, appellant had been permitted to 
~ 
H 
C. CHERIATHAN v. P. NARAYANAN EMBRANTHIRI 
1241 
' 
attorn to the landlord. The intention of appellant that by A 
reason of the deed in question, he would become the 
•.....J 
owner of the entire property was thus obvious. [Paras 12, 
17] [1246-D-E; 1250-A, B] 
Seth Gangadhar v. Shankar Lal & Ors. (1959) SCR 509; 
Poma/ Kanji Govindji & Ors. v. Vrajlal Karsandas Purohit & B 
Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 458 and Shivdev Singh & Anr. v. Sucha 
Singh & Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 326, distinguished. 
-.A 
Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Prasad & Anr. · 
(2006) 4 SCC 432 and Manjabai Krishna Pati

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.