SRI SRINIVASAIAH versus H. R. CHANNABASAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY HIS LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 25-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 265 
SRI SRINIVASAI \H 
v. 
H. R. CHANNABASAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY HIS LRS. AND 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5576-5577 of2017) 
APRIL 25, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ;I 
A 
B 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s.58(c) - Nature of 
document - Mortgage by conditional sale or a sale out and out C 
with a condition to repurchase - Held: Document is mortgage deed 
by conditional sale - Third condition of S. 58(c) that 'on condition 
that such payment being made, buyer shall tran~fer the property to 
seller', satisfied - Transaction is concluded in one document; 
document styled as "deed of conditional sale" itself contains the 
condition of repurchase on offering the sale money without interest D 
for the reason that buyer-defendant no.} was allowed to use the 
land till the money is not paid back to iii111 by the seller-plaintiff; 
and that the parties'. intention as per terms of document also 
supported by the evidence - Reasoning and the conclusion arrived 
at by the trial court and the High Court that the document is a 
E 
'mortgage deed by conditional sale' as defined uls. 58(c) just and 
proper and thus, upheld - Deeds and documents. 
Limitation Act, 1963 - Art. 61 (a) - Suit by mortgagor, to 
redeem or recove1; possession of immovable property mortgaged -
Period of limitation - On facts, document being mortgage by way 
of conditional sale, and right to redeem accrued to mortgagor on 
27.07.1974 and suit was filed on 19.09.1987 - Held: Suit was filed 
within limitation period of 30 years - Case is governed by Art. 6l(a) 
providing limitation of 30 years when right to redeem or to recover 
possession accrues to the mortgago1: 
F 
Contract Act, 1872 - s. 65 - Obligation of person who has 
G 
received advantage under void agreement, or contract that becomes· 
"void - Execution of mortgage deed by plaintiff-mortgagor in favour 
'a/defendant no. 1 by way of security for repayment of loan given 
"to. him by defendant no. 1 - Possession of suit land delivered to 
' 
. f, 
. 
• 
265 
H 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A defendant no. 1 for 5 years to use the same, thereaper, on repayment 
of loan amount by plaintiff, defendant no. 1 would restore possession 
of suit land by redeeming the mortgage - However, suit land not 
redeemed in his favour - Meanwhile, defendant no. J sold suit land 
for Rs. 30,0001- to defendant no. 2-appellant - Suit to redeem by 
B 
mortgagor-plaintiff - Suit decreed against defendants by trial court 
and upheld by High Court and this Court, whereby LRs of original 
plaintiff to repay loan amount to LRs of original defendant no. 1 
and defendant no. 1 to execute sale deed by retransferring the suit 
land to plaintiff and restore them the possession - As regards the 
sale consideration of Rs. 30,0001- with defendant no 1, held: Effect 
C of the decree is that the transaction of sale of suit land between 
defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 vide sale deed is declared bad 
and stands nullified - Jn view thereof. defendant no. 1 has no right 
to retain the sale consideration to himself - Thus, LRs of defendant 
no.J to return the sale consideration of Rs.30,0001- to defendant 
D no. 2. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 On examining the nature of document-Ex.P-1, 
it is held that the document-Ex.P-1 is a mortgage with conditional 
sale as defined under Section 58 (c) of the Transfer of Property 
E Act, 1882, in view of the said reasons. Firstly, it is not in dispute 
that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land. Second, the parties 
concluded the transaction in question by executing one document-
Ex.P-1. Third, the document-Ex.P-1 is styled as a "Deed of 
Conditional Sale". Fourth, it contains a condition that defendant 
No.1 would be allowed to remain in possession of the suit property 
F for 5 years and enjoy the fruits of the land and that during this 
period, the plaintiff would be entitled to get the suit property re-
. conveyed in his name on paying Rs.1500/- by getting the sale 
deed executed in his name and obtain possession of the suit land 
from defendant No.1. Fifth, the plaintiff offered to pay Rs.1500/-
G to defendant No.1 with a request to resale the land to him. [Para 
26] [277-A-C) 
1.2 The said reasons satisfies the third condition of Section 
58(c) of the .T.P. Act, namely, "on condition that; such payment 
being made, the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller". It 
H also satisfies the tests laid down by this Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.