LexPRAKASH (DEAD) BY LR. versus G. ARADHYA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 1034 : 2023 INSC 743 1034 CASE DETAILS PRAKASH (DEAD) BY LR. v. G. ARADHYA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 706 of 2015) AUGUST 18, 2023 [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Transaction between the parties whether an absolute sale of the property or a mortgage. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 β s.58(c) β Two documents executed on same day, Sale Deed and Reconveyance Deed/agreement of buy back deed, transaction if mortgage or absolute sale of the property: Held: Proviso to sub-section (c) of s.58 provides that no transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage, unless the condition is embodied in the document which eο¬ ects or purports to eο¬ ect the sale β In the present case, admittedly, there are two separate documents β Sale Deed was an absolute sale for a total sale consideration of ` 5,000/- required by the vendor to meet domestic expenses and to meet education expenses of his minor son (appellant) and to discharge some debts β Possession of the property was to be delivered on registration of the Sale Deed β The vendee was entitled to get the mutation entered in her name and enjoy the property by paying the taxes, if any β She would become an absolute owner thereof from generation to generation β There were no encumbrances attached to the property β Further, the agreement of buy back mentioned that after registration of the Sale Deed, the vendor had requested the vendee to resell the property within the time given β The vendee granted him ο¬ ve yearsβ time to repurchase the property in case sale consideration of ` 5000/- was paid β It was agreed that the agreement shall cease immediately after expiry of 5 years β Thus, in terms of the Sale Deed and the Reconveyance Deed, reconsidered in the light of the enunciation of law, the same cannot be held to be a transaction of mortgage of property β Sale of property initially, was 1035 absolute β By way of execution of Reconveyance Deed on the same day, the only right given to the appellants was to repurchase the property β No error in the judgment of the High Court upholding the decree of the trial Court by which the suit ο¬ led by the appellant for redemption of mortgage was dismissed. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 β s.58(c) β Scope: Held: The proviso was added in s.58(c) so as to put at rest the conο¬ icting decisions on the issue β A deeming ο¬ ction was added in the negative that a transaction shall not be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition for reconveyance is contained in the document which purports to eο¬ ect the sale. LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Prasad and another (2006) 4 SCC 432: [2006] 2 SCR 566 β relied on. Indira Kaur (Smt.) and others v. Sheo Lal Kapoor (1988) 2 SCC 488; Sunil Kumar and another v. Ram Parkash and others (1988) 2 SCC 77: [1988] 2 SCR 623; Ramlal and another v. Phagua and others (2006) 1 SCC 168: [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 331; Ahilyabai and others v. Shantabai (Dead) and others (2001) 10 SCC 583; Pandit Chunchun Jha v. Sk. Ebadat Ali [1955] 1 SCR 174; Mushir Mohd. Khan v. Sajeda Bano (2000) 3 SCC 536: [2000] 2 SCR 65; Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (2005) 6 SCC 243: [2005] 3 SCR 521 β referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 706 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2009 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No.969 of 2000. Appearances: Mrs. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., Mrs. T S Shanthi, Narendra Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant. Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv., Chandan S. Rao, Ms. Rashi Rampal, Ms. Meghana TM, Vikas Mehta, Advs. for the Respondents. PRAKASH (DEAD) BY LR. v. G. ARADHYA AND ORS. 1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court impugning the judgment1 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by which the Appeal2 ο¬ led by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was upheld. FACTS 2. The facts, as evident from the record, are that on 16.10.1963 a property measuring 30 ft. x 60 ft. was purchased by the father of the appellant, Gangaramaiah, in the name of the appellant, who was minor at that time. On 24.12.1973 the father of the appellant, Gangaramaiah sold the aforesaid property to one Rudramma for a sum of βΉ 5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand). Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.