:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.370 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.370 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.370 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1487 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1487 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1487 OF 2008 1.Shri Ganpati Bharmu Rendale, Since deceased through his legal representative: 1A. Vimal Ganpati Rendale & Ors. ...Appellants. v. Shankar Rama Shinde ...Respondent. Mr.P.D.Dalvi , adv. for the Appellants. Mr.N.J.Patil , adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 1st September, 2008. DATE: 1st September, 2008. DATE: 1st September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for both the Parties. 2. The appellant before this Court is the original defendant. Plaintiff had executed registered document dated 17-5-91 on taking an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the defendant. As per the title of the document, it was mortgage with conditional sale. Even in the body of the document, it is clearly mentioned that the plaintiff was executing mortgage with conditional sale. It is mentioned that on receipt of Rs.30,000/-, plaintiff had put the defendant in possession of the property and as per the terms of the contract, on expiry of seven years and within two years thereafter, the plaintiff would be :2: entitled to repay the amount of Rs.30,000/- and get the loan redeemed and in case, he would fail to make the payment within stipulated period, the defendant would become owner of the property treating this document itself as absolute sale deed. Period of seven years expired on 17th May, 1998. According to the plaintiff, he offered to repay the amount and get the property back but the defendant refused and, therefore, on 8-6-1998, he filed suit for redemption of mortgage. The defendant contested the suit. According to him, the document is not of mortgage by conditional sale but it was out and out sale with the condition of re-purchase. 3. The trial Court framed several issues and after hearing the evidence, came to conclusion that it was mortgage with conditional sale and the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgage and to get reconveyance deed executed in his favour. Against the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant preferred regular civil appeal no.220 of 2005 in the Court of District Judge at Ichalkaranji. The appeal also came to be dismissed, therefore, he has preferred the second appeal. 4. On perusal of the document and the contents thereof as stated earlier, there remains no doubt that it was clearly a mortgage with conditional sale and the plaintiff not only offered to repay the amount :3: immediately on expiry of seven years but within almost 3 weeks filed the suit for redemption. He could have offered to repay the amount within two years after the expiry of seven years, while he filed suit within three weeks. Taking into consideration the facts and contents of the documents, I find no substantial question of law involved in the matter. 5. Appeal stands dismissed. 5. As the appeal itself is dismissed, civil application no.1487 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)