Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case of GANPATI BABJI ALAMWAR (D) BY LRs. RAMLU AND OTHERS VERSUS DIGAMBARRAO VENKATRAO BHADKE AND OTHERS, the appellants, who were the original defendants are aggrieved by the dismissal of their second appeal, affirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which reversed the dismissal of the suit for redemption of mortgage filed by the plaintiffs. In this suit the plaintiffs purchased daily necessities from the shop of defendant no.1 on credit. A sum of Rs.10,500/became outstanding after verification of accounts. On 26.04.1970, the plaintiffs executed an instalment bond, Exhibit 53, to pay the dues in three yearly instalments on theoccasion of Gudi Padwa in 1971, 1972 and 1973. The plaintiffs defaulted in payment of the first instalment itself. On 29.04.1971, Exhibit 52, the plaintiffs executed a conditional sale deed for sale of their agricultural lands measuring 2½ acres in favour of defendant no.1 for a sum of Rs.11,000/. The earlier dues of Rs.10,500/formed part of the consideration. The plaintiffs admitted having received a sum of Rs.500/earlier. The agreement provided that the plaintiffs upon repayment of the dues by Gudi Padwa of 1973 shall be entitled to reconveyance of the lands. In the event of their failure to do so, the sale would become absolute.
The plaintiffs having failed to repay the dues, defendant no.1 obtained mutation of the lands in his name on 13.05.1976 and sold the lands to defendant no.2 by a registered sale deed dated 13.02.1978. The plaintiffs thereafter filed the suit for redemption in the year 1980. The Civil Judge held that the nature of the document coupled with the recitals therein and conduct of the plaintiff, left him in no doubt that the document was a sale deed. The First Appellate Court and the High Court on an interpretation of the document held it to be a mortgage by conditional sale, opining that their existed the relationship of a debtor and a creditor, and not that of a transferor or transferee. Therefore the appellant filed the present appeal in the Supreme Court, the Supreme court after hearing the case took the case of Vithal Tukaram Kadam and held “ there is no avail to him in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The question whether the appellant was a bona fide purchaser or not cannot be considered relevant in the facts of the present case and may require further evidence. It is therefore left open for consideration vis à vis defendant no.1 in an appropriate proceeding if instituted by the appellant. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824