MANJABAI KRISHNA PATIL (D) BY LRS. versus RAGHUNATH REVAJI PATIL AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 951 · Decided: 20-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

./ 
MANJABAI KRISHNA PATIL (D) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
RAGHUNATH REV AJI PATIL AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 20, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Transfer of Property Act, I 882-s.58(c), proviso-Mortgage by 
conditional sale-Requirements for-On facts, deed of sale of property 
followed by an agreement of re-conveyance-Documents executed on different C 
dates and different places-Held: The transaction cannot be held to be a 
mortgage by conditional sale, since no condition was embodied in the 
document which effected or purported to effect the sale-Agreement of 
reconveyance hence not required to be compulsorily registered-Registration 
Act-Section 17. 
Appellants executed a sale deed in favour of the two Respondents on 
29-11-1966 which was registered on 17-12-1966. On the same day an 
agreement of re-conveyance was also executed under which Respondents 
agreed to convey the property back to Appellant after five years. As the 
Respondents failed/neglected to act in terms of the re-conveyance agreement, 
D 
a suit for specific performance was filed by the Appellants against the E 
Respondents. The suit was decreed. The First Appellate Court held that the 
Appellants were not ready to perform their part, however, rejected the 
contention of Respondent that time was essence of contract. High Court, in 
second appea~ held that the re-conveyance agreement was part and parcel of 
same transaction and being compulsorily registerable; for want of registration, F 
the same was not admissible in evidence, and dismissed the appeal 
In appeal to this Court it was contended by the appellants that keeping 
in view the fact that the deed of sale was executed on 29.11.1966, and the 
agreement of re-conveyance was executed on 17.12.1966, the same was not 
required to be registered. Respondents on the other hand contended that G 
although the sale deed was executed on 29.11.1966, but having been registered 
on 17.12.1966 itself on which date the agreement of reconveyancew~s . 
executed, the same must be held to be a part of the same transaction arid, 
951 
+-
952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A thus, was compulsorily registerable. 
7. 
+-
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the First Appellate 
Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. Two documents were executed on different dates and at 
B different places. Whereas the deed of sale was executed at Tai. Raver, the 
purported agreement of reconveyance was executed at Waghad where the 
registration office was situated. (Para 8) (955-DJ 
2. By rei.son of the sale deed dated 29.11.1966, the respondents obtained 
> • 
c 
possession of the entire suit property. The property was transferred absolutely 
so as to enable the vendee to use the same till their life time as. also by their 
legal representatives. Appellants declared that they would have no right, title 
and interest in the said land, nor they would have ownership right and in case 
anyone claimed any such right, the same would be treated as cancelled. An 
.,_. 
easemental')' right was also conveyed. It was stipulated that the land was not 
D encumbered. as the mortgage which had been created in respect of the said 
land, has been redeemed and in the event "anything is found", 'they would be 
responsible for the same'. The amount of consideration was received on 
different dates at different places. The said deed must, therefore, be construed 
to be a deed of absolute sale. [Paras 9, 1 OJ (955-E-G) 
'f' 
E 
3. Furthermore, Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 
provides for satisfaction of the conditions for mortgage by way of conditional 
sale. Proviso appended to Section 58( c) is clear and unambiguous. A legal 
fiction is created thereby that the transaction shall not be held to be a mortgage 
by conditional sale, unless a condition is embodied in the document which 
F 
effects or purports to effect the sale. Where two documents are executed, the 
transaction in question would not amount to a mortgage by way of conditional 
'r 
sale. In a case of this nature, ordinarily the same would be considered to be 
'" 
a deed of sale coupled with an agreement of reconveyance. In the instant case, 
no relationship of debtor or creditor came into being. No security was created 
and in fact conveyance of the title of the property by the respondent to the 
G appellant was final and absolute. [Paras 11, 12, 17) (955-H; 956-D-E; 958-C( 
Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Prasad and Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 
432; Mushir Mohammed Kh

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