RAMA DEVI versus DILIP SINGH

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 14-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 5 S.C.R. 75 
) 
RAMA DEVI 
A 
\/. 
DILIP SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 4125 of 2001) 
MARCH 14, 2008 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property - Transfer of land with possession -
By a Bhumidhar - Against a loan - Execution of Mortgage 
deed -
Transferer filing suit seeking redemption of the c 
mortgage - Trial Court as well as first and second appellate 
courts finding that the transaction was in fact a sale and not a 
conditional mortgage - On appeal, held: Transferer lost the 
right of redemption - Apart from concurrent finding that the 
transaction was a sale, even by virtue of s. 164 of Zamindari D 
Abolition Act, such transaction would be deemed to be a sale 
to the transferee - Uttar Pradesh Zaminidari Abolition and 
Land Reforms Act, 1951 - s. 164 - Transfer of Property Act, 
1882 - s. 58-C. 
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms 
E 
Act, 1951 - s, 155 rlw s. 166 ands. 164 - Applicability of -
When - Discussed. 
Deeds and Documents - Interpretation of a document -
A document should be construed and interpreted as a whole 
F 
in order to arrive at its true meaning and import. 
"" 
Appellant-plaintiff had executed a deed of conditional 
mortgage in favour of the respondent in respect of he land 
in question, against a loan taken from him. It was 
stipulated in the deed that if the loan amount with interest G 
was returned by her within a period of 5 years, the land 
would be re-conveyed to her. According to the appellant, 
within the period of 5 years, she requested the respondent 
-r 
to re-convey the land, but he refused. However, under 
75 
H 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
<. 
A influence of local people, respondent returned the 
possession of the land to the appellant. Since the re-
conveyance had not be!en executed by the respondent, 
the appellant filed a suit seeking decree for redemption 
of the conditional mortgage. Trial Court dismissed the suit 
B holding that the document in question was not a 
mortgage but was in fa1::t a sale and that the possession 
of the land was with the respondent and hence 
respondent had no right to get the property redeemed. 
First appellate court dismissed the suit upholding the view 
c of trial court and holding further that the deed would also 
be deemed to be a sale u/s 164 ofU.P. Zamindari Abolition 
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Act being a special 
Act, would supercede the provisions of Transfer of 
Property Act; and thait appellant had not sought re-
D conveyance within 5 years. Second Appeal was aiso 
dismissed by High Court. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended interalia 
that the transaction was a mortgage by way of conditional 
sale under Section 58-C of Transfer of Property Act; that 
E she was entitled to redemption within a period of 30 years; 
and that Section 164 of Zamindari Abolition Act was not 
applicable in view of specific bar u/s 155 r/w s. 166 of 
Zaminidari Abolition Ac:t. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The three courts below have examined the 
document and concluded that it was in fact a sale and 
not a mortgage, as understood under section 58-C of 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A document has to be 
G construed and interprnted as a whole in order to arrive at 
a conclusion as to its true meaning and import and to 
determine whether it was a mortgage by way of 
conditional sale or a sale outright. It is apparent from the 
-r-
evidence on record that the possession had been 
H transferred to the respondent herein at the time of the 
) 
RAMA DEVI v. DILIP SINGH 
77 
execution of the document and the respondent continues A 
to be in possession as of today as per the findings of the 
three courts below. The Court is, therefore, disinclined 
to interfere with the findings of fact for these reasons. 
[Para 6] [81-G; 82-A, B] 
Chunchun Jha vs. Ebadat Ali and Anr AIR 1954 SC 345 B 
- relied on. 
2.1 Even otherwise assuming for a moment that the 
transaction was in fact a mortgage, the appellant has lost 
all her rights in the property by virtue of the deeming c 
provisions in section 164 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (ZALR Act). [Para 7] 
[82-C] 
Smt. Bhagwatia vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation at 
Deoria and Ors. 1982 Allahabad L.J. 29; Safi Prasad and D 
Anr. vs. The Dy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur and Ors. 
1983 Allahabad L.J. 331 - affirmed. 
P.B.Maganbhai and Anr vs. P.K.Ambaram and Ors. 1997 
Allahabad LR. Vol. 29 - refe

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