1. The defendant in O.S.No.1417 of 1993 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is the appellant in the Second Appeal. Respondents 1 to 3 filed the suit for the relief of redemption of mortgage, against the appellant. They prayed for a preliminary decree, through which, the appellant be directed to receive a sum of Rs.16,000/-, as provided for under a document, dated 29.04.1977, and to execute deed of reconveyance in respect of the suit schedule premises, comprised in House Nos.14-9-30 to 34 and 14-9-1168 to 1170 situated at Jinsi Chau Rahi, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. Direction was also sought against the appellant preventing him from executing the order, dated 17.11.1992, passed by the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.732 of 1987. A prayer for redelivery of possession of the property was also made.

2. It was pleaded that the appellant is a professional money lender and in April 1977, the respondents approached him to lend some amount for the purpose of performing the marriage of their sister, by name, Kumari Prasanna. The appellant is said to have insisted on the suit schedule property being offered as security, and that in view of the impending necessity, they have agreed for the same. It was alleged that on 29.04.1977, three documents were executed, viz., (a) sale deed in favour of the appellant, (b) an agreement of sale by the appellant, and (c) a rent deed, enabling the respondents to remain in possession of the property, on payment of monthly rent.

3. According to the plaint averments, the arrangement between the parties, was, one, of mortgage by conditional sale. Respondents 2 and 3 urged that though the rents were being paid regularly, the appellant was not in the habit of issuing receipts, and accordingly, obtained an order of eviction by filing R.C.No.732 of 1987, by pleading default. It was pleaded that they were ready and willing to repay the amount borrowed by them, and in spite of their request to execute necessary documents in their favour, the appellant is dodging the matter, on one pretext, or the other.

4. The appellant filed written statement, denying the material allegations. He admitted the averments, as to the execution of various deeds. It was his case that he was put in possession of the property, on the basis of sale and thereafter, a rental deed was executed and since the respondents were irregular in payment of rents, R.C.No.732 of 1987 was filed. He urged that, without availing the remedy of appeal and revision, against the order of eviction passed in R.C.No.732 of 1987, the respondents filed the suit.

5. Through its judgment, dated 30.06.1997, the trial Court decreed the suit. The appellant filed A.S.No.274 of 1997, in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 07.03.2002. Hence, this Second Appeal.

6. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, respondents 2 and 3 died and their legal representatives, respondents 4, 6 and 7, are brought on record.

7. Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the suit filed by the respondents is not maintainable in law. He contends that the sale deed, dated 29.04.1977, which was marked as Ex.A.2, was unconditional, and there was no clause, in it; to suggest that the transaction has any elements of mortgage. According to him, the agreement of sale executed on the same day, which was marked as Ex.A3, is independent of the sale and that the rental deed, Ex.A.1 would clearly prove that the appellant has acquired absolute right over the property. Placing reliance upon Section 58 (c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, learned counsel submits that, unless the obligation to reconvey the property is contained in the sale deed itself, it cannot be treated as a transaction of mortgage.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the relief claimed in the suit does not fit into Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. He urges that the order in