Summary
An absolute registered sale deed did not become a mortgage by conditional sale because a separate contemporaneous agreement promised reconveyance on repayment. Section 58(c) required the mortgage condition in the conveyance itself. The separate agreements concerned contractual reconveyance, and repayment had not occurred. A redemption suit was therefore misconceived; any claim for specific performance required its own proper pleadings and proof.
Issues
- Whether separate repayment and reconveyance agreements converted the absolute sale into a mortgage by conditional sale.
- Whether the suit for redemption was maintainable on these documents.
Provisions considered
- Section 58(c), proviso, Transfer of Property Act, 1882Required the condition constituting mortgage by conditional sale to be embodied in the sale instrument itself, excluding a separate repurchase agreement even if contemporaneous. (¶ 4–8)
Held
- The registered deed conveyed absolute rights without a mortgage condition. A separate same-day reconveyance agreement could not overcome the statutory proviso or alter that conveyance. (¶¶ 5, 7–8)
- The later agreement reflected additional financial assistance and a repayment deadline for reconveyance. The admitted failure to repay did not support the asserted mortgage or redemption right. (¶ 8)
- Mutation did not establish title by itself, but the purchaser’s obtaining an unchallenged mutation order in proceedings involving the vendor was relevant conduct when construing this transaction. (¶ 9–10)
- A reconveyance agreement could be pursued through a properly pleaded and proved specific-performance claim, not the present redemption suit. The Court did not grant specific performance. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; High Court judgment set aside and first appellate judgment dismissing the redemption suit restored.