TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules transaction not a mortgage but a sale deed with an agreement to reconvey. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>Rechuri Suryaprakasa Rao and Ors. Versus Gottumukkala Venkatraju and Ors.</h3> The High Court upheld the Subordinate Judge's ruling that the transaction in question was not a mortgage but a sale deed with an agreement to reconvey. ... - Issues:1. Suit for redemption of properties dismissed by Subordinate Judge.2. Plaintiffs claimed transaction was either a mortgage by conditional sale or an anomalous mortgage.3. Defence argued against redemption claim based on Section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act.4. Appellant's counsel attempted to overcome the proviso to Section 58(c) in two ways.5. Interpretation of the term 'shall be deemed to be' in relation to the transaction.6. Merits of the case - Subordinate Judge's ruling that the transaction was not a mortgage.Analysis:1. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their suit for redemption of properties conveyed to a vendee under a sale deed and an agreement to reconvey executed on the same day. They claimed the transaction was either a mortgage by conditional sale or an anomalous mortgage. The Subordinate Judge rejected their contentions challenging the validity of the transaction, focusing on the nature of the transaction itself.2. The defence contended that under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, it was not permissible to treat the transaction as a mortgage since the agreement to re-convey was not part of the sale deed. The defence also argued that the intention of the parties did not align with considering the transaction as a mortgage. The Subordinate Judge ruled in favor of the defence on both grounds, leading to the appeal by the plaintiffs.3. In the appeal, the appellant's counsel sought to circumvent the proviso to Section 58(c) in two ways. Firstly, by arguing that the transaction could be a different type of mortgage other than a mortgage by conditional sale. However, previous court decisions and the intention behind the proviso supported the view that such a transaction would still be deemed a mortgage by conditional sale.4. Secondly, the appellant's counsel contended that the term 'shall be deemed to be' did not outright prohibit the court from concluding that a transaction, even if in multiple documents, could still be a mortgage. However, various court decisions and interpretations of the proviso emphasized the rigid nature of the rule when the condition for retransfer was not part of the sale document.5. The interpretation of the term 'deemed' in legal context was crucial in understanding the proviso's effect. The court clarified that when the condition for reconveyance was not in the same document, the sale could not be deemed a mortgage. This interpretation reinforced the strict application of the proviso in determining the nature of the transaction.6. Ultimately, the Subordinate Judge's ruling that the transaction was not a mortgage was upheld. The High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the proviso to Section 58(c) and previous court decisions supported the view that the transaction could only be considered a mortgage by conditional sale. The appellants were directed to pay costs to the first respondent, and the appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
