PATEL RAVJIBHAI BHULABHAJ (D) THR. LRS. versus RAHEMANBHAI M .. SHAIKH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 1002 · Decided: 02-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R.1002 
A 
PATEL RAVJIBHAI BHULABHAJ (D) THR. LRS. 
B 
v. 
RAHEMANBHAI M .. SHAIKH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4683 of20J 6) 
MAY02;2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Transfer. of Property Act, 1882 - ss.58(c), 60 .-.Ex.ecution of 
deed between parties -· lnterpretatiOn of - Mortgage by conditional 
sale or sale with optiolT to repurchase.- Held: There was a condition 
C 
in the deed that if pl'aintiffs-respondents make repayment of Rs. 
I 0, 000/- within a period .of five years, defendants would handover 
the possession of proeprty in suit back to plaintiffs - Condition 
reflects that the actual transaciion between the parties was of a 
loan, and the relationship of debtor and creditor existed - Thus, 
the High Court rightly held that the deed is a mortgage by way of 
D conditional sale - Decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs does 
not"ca/l for interference. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The condition in the deed that if the plaintiffs 
(respondents) make repayment of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 
E five years; the defendants shall handover the possession of 
property in suit back to tbe plaintiffs and in the same manner 
respondents shall have no right..tP.ask back the same after expiry 
of the time limit, reflects that the actual transaction between the 
parties was of a loan, and the relationship was of debtor and 
F creditor existed, as such, the High Court rightly held that the .• 
deed is a mortgage by way of condidonal sale and tl)e decree 
passed in favour of the plaintiffs does not require to be interfered 
with. Since the possession of the land was handed over to the 
mortgagee, no interest was charged. The defendants leased the 
land to third parties, after possession was given by the plaintiffs 
G in 1960. In the circumstances, after perusal of the evidence on 
record, the view taken by the High Court is accepted. [Para 14] 
[1007-D-G] 
Tulsi and Others vs. Chandrika Prasad and Others 
(2006) 8 SCC 322; P.L. Bapuswami vs. N. Pattay Gounde 
H 
AIR 1966 SC 902: 1966 SCR 918; Vishwanath 
1002 
PATELRAVJIBHAI BHULABHAi (D)THR. LRS. v. RAHEMANBHAI 
M. SHAIKH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. 
.~ . -. 
2016. 
Dadoba Kara/e vs. Parisa Shantappa Upadhya (2008) 
11 SCC 504: 2008 (4) SCR 993 : C.Cheriathan vs. P 
Nardpanan Embranthiri (2009) 2 SCC 673:2008 (17) 
SCR 1239 - referred to. 
Mu/la's Tran~fer of Property Act (Jltil Edition) ~ 
referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2006) 8 sec 322 
referred to 
Para 10 
1966 SCR 918 
referred to 
Para 11 
2008 (4) SCR 993 
referred to 
Para 12 
2008 (1'7)--SCR 1239 
referred to 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4683 of 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20/21/24.09.2012ofthe High 
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Second Appeal No. 107of1994. 
Haresh Raichura, Ms. Saroj Raichura, Kalp Raichura, Rajat Vats, 
Advs. for the Appellants. 
Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Jitendra Malkan, Ms. Dharita Malkan 
S. Arora, A. Singh, Advs. for the the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. I. Leave granted .. 
2. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 20/ 
21/24-09-2012, passed by High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad, whereby 
Second Appeal No. I 07of1994 is allowed, and dismissal of sujt by trial_ 
1003 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
court as affirmed by First Appellate Court is reversed. The suit of the 
F 
respondents/plaintiffs for redemption of suit property is decreed by High 
· Court on the payment of Rs. I 0,000/- within a period of six months by 
the plaintiffs from the date of the decree. 
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused 
the papers on record. 
G 
4. Brief facts of the case are that original plaintiffs Shaikh 
Rahemanbhai Mohamadbhai (since died) and Shaikh Ismailbhai 
Moahamadbhai, executed a deed dated 30.12.1960 in favor of defendant 
nos. 1 and 2, namely, Patel Ravjibhai Bhulabhai (since died) and Patel 
Dahyabhai Bhudarbhai, which was titled as conditional sale, for a sum 
H 
1004 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 
of Rs. I 0,000/- providing therein that if the repayment is made within a 
period of five years, the defendants shall give back the property in suit 
with possession to the plaintiffs with further stipulation that the plaintiffs 
would have no right to get back the property after the expiry of the 
period of five years. The plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No. 156of1984 
before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dakor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.