Case: Ramvilas (Dead) Thr. Lrs.  Vs. Karim Khan

The present appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur: Bench at Gwalior in Second Appeal No.374 of 1998 dated 22.06.2005, confirming the findings of the Courts below that the Sale Deed executed in favour of the appellants-defendants was only a mortgage as a security for repayment of the loan taken by the 1st respondent-plaintiff

Reasoning: 10. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Courts below recorded that Exhibit D/1 Sale Deed dated 14.06.1972 and Exhibit P/1 Agreement dated 14.06.1972 having been executed on the same day and both ought to be read together. The Courts below have also recorded a concurrent finding of fact that Exhibit D/1 Sale Deed was executed only as a security for the loan and it was never the intention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to convey the suit property. Since 1st respondent- plaintiff has paid back the loan amount i.e. Rs. 6,700/- as is evident from the subsequent Agreement Exhibit P/2 dated 05.06.1974, the Courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings of fact that Exhibit D/1 Sale Deed is not binding on the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Once repayment was made, the 1st respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for11. Yet another reason could be pointed out for affirming the impugned judgment of the High Court. It has been held by the trial Court that at the time of selling the suit property the extent was more than 10 Bighas i.e. 1/3rd share of 1st respondent-plaintiff in 2.856 hectares of the total land. Referring to the oral and documentary evidence of 1st respondent- plaintiffs witness Ajay Singh, the trial Court recorded a finding that at the time of sale of the land in 1972, the market value of the land in Padariya was Rs. 2000/- per Bigha and at the time of the sale, the value of the property would have been not less than Rs. 15000/-. The inadequacy of the sale consideration stated in Exhibit D/1 Sale Deed is yet another circumstance to indicate that the 1st respondent-plaintiff could not have intended to sell the property to the appellants-defendants