Case: Vithal Tukaram Kadam And Anr Vs. Vamanrao Sawalaram Bhosale And Ors

The appellants suit for redemption of mortgage, decreed by two courts, has been reversed in second appeal by the High Court. The parties shall be referred to by their respective positions in the suit, for convenience and better appreciation.The Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge in appeal, after consideration of the recitals in the deed, intention of the parties, and the attendant circumstances, held that it was a mortgage by conditional sale.4. The High Court in second appeal, opined that there did not exist a debtor and creditor relationship between the parties. The deed contained no recital that the suit lands were being transferred for securing payment of money. The agreement was a sale deed, transferring title and possession. The option for reconveyance, was not exercised within the stipulated period of ten years. The suit itself was thus not maintainable. The plaintiff, while objecting to mutation in the name of the defendant, did not make any offer to repay the amount of Rs. 700/mentioned in the deed, seeking consequent return of the lands. The agreement was held to be a sale, with an option to repurchase.

Reasoning:
There can be no hard and fast rule for determining the nature of the document devoid of these circumstances.The essentials of an agreement, to qualify as a mortgage by conditional sale, can succinctly be broadly summarised. An ostensible sale with transfer of possession and ownership, but containing a clause for reconveyance in accordance with Section 58 (c) of the Act, will clothe the agreement as a mortgage by conditional sale. The execution of a separate agreement for reconveyance, either contemporaneously or subsequently, shall militate against the agreement being mortgage by conditional sale. There must exist a debtor and creditor relationship. The valuation of the property, and the transaction value, along with the duration of time for reconveyance, are important considerations to decide the nature of the agreement. There will have to be a cumulative consideration of these factors, along with the recitals in the agreement, intention of the parties, coupled with other attendant circumstances, considered in a holistic manner.15. The agreement, Exhibit 62, though styled as a sale deed, for a consideration of Rs. 700/is but an ostensible sale, containing a clause for reconveyance. The agreement concludes asI repay your amount of Rs. 700/in any year (at any time) during the period of ten years from now then you have to return my said land to me, subject to this condition I have sold land tosignificance of the words "repay", "return" and "subject to this condition" cannot be overlooked. They are not commensurate with a deed of absolute sale. The language used, conveys the distinct impression that the plaintiff did not intend to relinquish all rights, title and claims to his lands. The defendant was aware of the limited nature of right conveyed and had agreed to a conditional sale along with an obligation to return the lands if the amount was repaid.16. The plaintiff initially filed Civil Suit no. 89/1975 for specific performance to transfer the lands back to him. It was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit for redemption. The filing of the fresh suit in 1986, beyond the period of ten years is hardly relevant. The limitation for the right to redeem, under Section 60 of the Act is thirty years.17. The parties were admittedly well known to each other since before. The plaintiff had been borrowing money from the defendant even earlier from time to time according to need, and even at the time of execution of the agreement he was in need of money. The value of the land was Rs. 3500/far in excess of the amount of Rs. 700/mentioned in the agreement. The defendant indid not deny the recital in Exhibit 66, dated 11.6.1975 in reply to notice, that he had demanded the sum of Rs.interest for reconveyance. The relationship of debtor and creditor cannot be faulted with. The respondent did not take any steps for mutation for three long years after the execution of the deed. The plaintiff had specifically objected to mutation in the name of the defendant, by Exhibits 33 and 34. The period for reconveyance provided in the agreement itself was inordinately long for ten years. The clause for reconveyance was in requirement with Section 58 (c) of the Act. The High Court failed to consider the aforesaid factors in totality and in a holistic manner, while arriving at the finding that there was no debtor and creditor relationship between the parties, and that the agreement was a sale deed with an option to repurchase. The findings are clearly unsustainable.