TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a transaction evidenced by a sale deed and a separate agreement to reconvey could be treated as a mortgage by conditional sale in the light of the proviso to Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 37(a) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940; (ii) whether the suit for declaration and redemption fell within the scope of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940; (iii) whether Section 37(a) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 was repugnant to Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Issue (i): Whether a transaction evidenced by a sale deed and a separate agreement to reconvey could be treated as a mortgage by conditional sale in the light of the proviso to Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 37(a) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940.
Analysis: The proviso to Section 58(c) requires the condition to be embodied in the very document effecting the sale. Section 37(a) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940, however, declares that where a loan is secured by a mortgage and the mortgagor ostensible sells the property on conditions of the kind mentioned in Section 58(c), the transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage by conditional sale notwithstanding the proviso. The statutory language shows a legislative intention to override the requirement that the condition must appear in the same document. The surrounding circumstances, including continued possession and payment of taxes by the mortgagors, supported that conclusion.
Conclusion: The transaction was rightly treated as a mortgage by conditional sale and the contention based on the proviso to Section 58(c) failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the suit for declaration and redemption fell within the scope of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940.
Analysis: The Act defines "loan" broadly and also defines a suit to which the Act applies so as to include proceedings for redemption of security. Section 36(4) applies to suits substantially for recovery of a loan, enforcement of security, or redemption of money secured by such security. The reliefs claimed in the suit included redemption and related declarations, and the earlier decision relied on by the appellants turned on materially different pleadings and reliefs. The suit was therefore within the statutory framework of the Act.
Conclusion: The suit was maintainable under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940, and the challenge to its maintainability failed.
Issue (iii): Whether Section 37(a) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 was repugnant to Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Analysis: Even assuming inconsistency between the State provision and Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the State provision dealt with a matter traceable to the Concurrent List and had received Presidential assent. In such a situation, Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India saves the State law in that State. The argument of legislative incompetence was also rejected.
Conclusion: Section 37(a) was not rendered inoperative in the State and was validly applied.
Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings of the courts below were affirmed, and the appellants were held not entitled to interfere with the decree against them.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a State law enacted on a concurrent subject with Presidential assent expressly overrides the proviso to a central statute, the State provision prevails within that State under Article 254(2), and the transaction must be determined according to the State enactment.
TaxTMI 
