2005 (10) TMI 585 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sale deed dated 01.12.1965 conveyed the title to the vendee.
2. Whether the High Court was right in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 CPC.
3. Whether the sale deed was executed as a nominal sale or as a real sale.
4. Whether the vendor failed to institute any suit for specific performance.
5. Whether the sale consideration was sufficient to determine the nature of the sale deed.
6. Whether the mutation of the name in revenue records confers any right, title, or interest.
7. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgments of the lower courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the sale deed dated 01.12.1965 conveyed the title to the vendee:
The High Court concluded that the sale deed dated 01.12.1965 was not a real sale deed but was executed by way of surety. The admission by the vendee (defendant No. 8) in her written statement and the oral evidence of D.W.1 Mehboob Khan, the husband of defendant No. 8, confirmed that the transaction was intended as a loan. Therefore, the sale deed did not pass any right, title, or interest to the vendee.

2. Whether the High Court was right in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 CPC:
The High Court framed a substantial question of law and found that the lower courts had not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. The High Court re-evaluated the evidence and concluded that the findings of the lower courts were erroneous. The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings to correct the manifest injustice.

3. Whether the sale deed was executed as a nominal sale or as a real sale:
The evidence indicated that the sale deed was executed as a security for a loan rather than a real sale. The agreement to reconvey the property upon repayment of the loan within three years further supported this conclusion. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's finding that the sale deed was nominal and did not convey title.

4. Whether the vendor failed to institute any suit for specific performance:
The appellants argued that the vendor did not file a suit for specific performance. However, the Supreme Court found that the nature of the transaction (a loan with a security deed) did not necessitate a suit for specific performance. The vendor's claim was for a declaration of ownership and recovery of possession, not specific performance of a contract.

5. Whether the sale consideration was sufficient to determine the nature of the sale deed:
The appellants contended that the sale consideration alone should not determine the nature of the sale deed. The Supreme Court noted that the sale consideration was significantly lower than the property's value, indicating that the transaction was not a genuine sale but a loan with security.

6. Whether the mutation of the name in revenue records confers any right, title, or interest:
The Supreme Court held that mere mutation of the name in revenue records does not confer any right, title, or interest in the absence of a real transaction of the property. The mutation of Mst. Hasrat Bi's name did not validate the sale deed as a genuine transfer of title.

7. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgments of the lower courts:
The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court was justified in reversing the lower courts' judgments. The High Court correctly identified errors in the appreciation of evidence and the application of law by the lower courts. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to rectify the manifest injustice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment and decree. The sale deed dated 01.12.1965 was deemed a nominal sale executed as security for a loan, and it did not convey any title to the vendee. The High Court's interference with the lower courts' findings was justified to correct the errors and ensure justice.