Honble DR. LAKSHMANAN, J.—The above appeal was filed by the unsuccessful defendants against the final judgment and order dated 6.8.1998 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 500 of 1989 whereby the High Court allowed the Second Appeal filed by the respondent/Plaintiff.

(2). The short facts of the case are as follows :—

The respondent/plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of Mst. Hasrat Bai after obtaining a loan of Rs. 400/- and also executed an agreement stating therein that in case she returns Rs. 400/- to Mst. Hasrat Bi within 3 years, property shall be re-conveyed to him. The respondent failed to repay the loan within the stipulated period 3 years. Therefore, Mst. Hasrat Bi got her name recorded in the revenue and sold the property to the appellant Ramlal Shyamlal and one Pyarelal by a registered sale deed for a sum of Rs. 400/-. According to the appellants, they came in possession of the property and are cultivating since then.

(3). Respondent No. 1-Phagua filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 1.12.1965 executed by her in favour of Mst. Hasrat Bi was only a nominal sale and she continues to be the owner of the suit land. She also prayed for possession of the suit land. The Trial Court held that the registered sale deed dated 1.12.1965 has not been executed nominally and accordingly the Trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed first appeal before the District Judge who also dismissed the appeal. The respondent filed second appeal before the High Court contending that the Court below have failed to consider an admission by respondent No. 8/defendant No. 8-Mst. Hasrat Bi that what was given was a loan committed an error in treating the document dated 1.12.1965 as a sale and not a nominal sale. It was submitted that the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below are erroneous in law and facts and deserve to be set aside.

(4). The High Court admitted the appeal and framed the following substantial question of law :—

"Whether the Court below was right in holding that the sale deed dated 1.12.1965 conveyed the title to respondent No. 8"

(5). The learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Courts below and held that the respondent has title over the suit land and on his paying a sum of Rs. 400/- to Mst. Hasrat Bi he shall have right to get possession of the suit land.

(6). Being aggrieved by the above judgment and decree passed by the High Court, the above civil appeal was filed by the defendants.

(7). We heard Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintiff.

(8). Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted as follows:—

a) the High Court was not right in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact under Section 100, CPC;

b) the vendor failed to institute any suit for specific performance in pursuance of a deed of re-conveying of the property to him by the vendee;

c) sale-consideration is not alone sufficient ground for interfering by the High Court in the second appeal and for holding that the object of the sale deed dated 1.12.1965 was not to convey the title in the property. He also invited our attention to the relevant pleadings and the evidence on record and also relied on the following decisions and also referred to the provisions of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:—

1) Mohan Lal vs. Nihal Singh, AIR 2001 SC 2942

2) Thiagarajan and Others vs. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 762

3) Manikkoth Narayani Amma and Others vs. P.C. Kalliani Amma and Others, (2003) 9 SCC 245

4) Makhan Lal vs. Asharfi Lal and Others, (1997) 9 SCC 604

(9). Per contra, Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1 /plaintiff submitted that the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the sale deed in question was not in fact a real sale deed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document