https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168637 A transaction described in a sale deed was upheld as an outright sale, not a disguised loan, because the trial court and High Court had concurrently assessed the surrounding circumstances, consideration, and possession and found the document reflected a true sale. In an appeal under Article 136, the Supreme Court declined to undertake a fresh reappraisal of evidence where concurrent findings of fact were recorded and found no basis to disturb the lower courts' conclusions on valuation or possession. The decision reinforces limited appellate interference with concurrent factual findings and the need to respect the evidentiary assessment already made below. en-us Tue, 01 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168637 A transaction described in a sale deed was upheld as an outright sale, not a disguised loan, because the trial court and High Court had concurrently assessed the surrounding circumstances, consideration, and possession and found the document reflected a true sale. In an appeal under Article 136, the Supreme Court declined to undertake a fresh reappraisal of evidence where concurrent findings of fact were recorded and found no basis to disturb the lower courts' conclusions on valuation or possession. The decision reinforces limited appellate interference with concurrent factual findings and the need to respect the evidentiary assessment already made below. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168637