SHRINIVASA REDDY AND OTHERS versus THE STATE 0F MYSORE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 06-11-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'959 
130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] 
The house in Dhanraj Lane was valued in the draft 
sale deed at Rs. 3,500 and in the sale deed at Rs. 2,ooo: 
Bhashar Wainan 
Joshi 
No explanation has been given for this disparity 
v. 
between the prices mentioned in the draft and the 
Narayan Rambilas sale deed and there is substance in the contention 
Agarwal 
s£rongly pressed by counsel for the transferors that the 
Shah]. 
'959 
November 6. 
value of Rs. 2,000 for a house with a ground floor and 
two stories is artificial. The evidence discloses that the 
house was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 20 and 
capitalising that rent at 5% on the assumption that by 
the construction the land was folly developed, the price 
thereof was more than double the price set out in the 
deed. It is clear that this house was included in the 
deed to make up the total value of Rs. 39,500, the 
amount required by the transferors to tide over their 
immediate difficulties. 
Counsel for the transferees sought to· rely upon the 
evidence of subsequent conduct of the transferors as 
indicative of the character of the transaction as a sale, 
but as already observed, that evidence is inadmissible. 
In our view, the High Court was right in holding 
that the real transaction incorporated in Ex. D-1 was 
a mortgage and not a sale. The appeal therefore fails 
and is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
SHRINIV ASA REDDY AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE 0]' MYSORE AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, 
K. N. WANCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Motor V ehicles-l>l ationalisation of transport services-Scheme 
-If must be capable of hfing implemented all at once-Application 
for permit by State Transport Undertaking-Procedure- Motor 
Vehicles Act, I939 (4 of r939), as amended by the Motor Vehicles 
(Amendment) Act, r956 (roo of r956), ss. 68C, 68F(z), 57(2). 
The stage carriage permits of the petitioners, who were also 
the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 75 of 1959, previously 
reported, were expiring on 31st March, 1958, and were rene\ved 
up to March 31, 1959· 
A fresh scheme of nationalisation having 
, 
-
-
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
131 
been approved ahd published under s. 68C of the Motor Vehicles 
z959 
Act, the Regional Transport Authority, in order to avoid incon-
venience to the public, granted temporary permits to the Shrinivasa Reddy 
petitioners till the State Transport Department obtained, their 
v. 
permits. The Departme'nt applied for permits under s. 68F(1) of 
The.State of 
the Act in accordance with the scheme admittedly less than six 
Mysore. 
weeks before the date when they were to take effect, contrary to 
the provision of s. 57(2) of the Act. The petitioners had also 
applied for renewal of their permits. The Regional Transport 
Authority issued permits to the Department and rejected the 
renewal applications of the petitioners. The petitioners moved 
the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing, 
that order. The High Court held that the issue of permits to the 
Department was invalid as the provision of s. 57(2) had not been 
complied with, and the refusal of renewal of the petitioners' 
permits was incorrect, but it dismissed the Writ Petition on the 
ground that the relief that could be granted to the petitioners 
could only be short-lived. The petitioners applied for a certificate 
to enable them to appeal to this Court and while that application 
lay pending, applied to this Court under Art. 32 of the Consti-
tution. It was contended on their behalf that before the renewal 
application could be rejected and permits grantea to the Depart-
ment under s. 68F(r) of the Act, the Department must apply 
for permits in respect of all the routes covered by the scheme so 
that there could be no possibility of any discrimination between 
an operator and an operator in infringement of Art. 14 of the 
Constitution as also their rights to carry on their business under 
Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It was further contended that 
non-compliance with the provision of s. 57(2) of the Act disentitl-
ed the Department to any permits at all. It was contended on 
behalf of the Department that it was open to it to implement the 
scheme by stage and it was denied that there could be any dis-
crimination in doing so or that. s. 57(2) applied to an application 
under s. 68F(1) of the Act. 
Held (per Sinha, C.J., Imam, Wanchoo and Das Gupta, JJ.), 
that it was clear from the language of s 68F of the 

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