<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1992 (3) TMI 358 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199836</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court examined whether a 1950 document constituted a mortgage by conditional sale under section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act or a sale with an option to repurchase. Reading the instrument as a whole, it found that the consideration was used to discharge prior debts rather than advanced as a loan, possession and enjoyment passed with ownership rights, and the transferee could mutate and deal with the property as owner. The absence of a corresponding right of foreclosure and the presence of strong title-transfer indicators were inconsistent with a mortgage by conditional sale. The transaction was therefore treated as a sale with an option to repurchase.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:59:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (3) TMI 358 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199836</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court examined whether a 1950 document constituted a mortgage by conditional sale under section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act or a sale with an option to repurchase. Reading the instrument as a whole, it found that the consideration was used to discharge prior debts rather than advanced as a loan, possession and enjoyment passed with ownership rights, and the transferee could mutate and deal with the property as owner. The absence of a corresponding right of foreclosure and the presence of strong title-transfer indicators were inconsistent with a mortgage by conditional sale. The transaction was therefore treated as a sale with an option to repurchase.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199836</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>