9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the document executed by the plaintiff's father in favor of the first defendant is a mortgage by conditional sale or an outright sale. 2. Whether the present suit is under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940. 3. Whether oral evidence can be admitted to prove the real nature of the impugned transaction. 4. Whether the impugned transaction is a mortgage by conditional sale or an outright sale based on the intention of the parties and the surrounding circumstances. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Mortgage by Conditional Sale or Outright Sale: The primary issue in this appeal was to determine the true nature of the document executed by the plaintiff's father in favor of the first defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the transaction was a loan secured by an ostensible sale deed, while the defendant contended it was an outright sale. The learned Munsif initially found it to be a loan transaction based on the market value of the property and the evidence provided by the pro forma Defendant No. 2. However, the learned Sub-Judge reversed this finding, concluding that the transaction was an outright sale, not a mortgage by conditional sale, as the plaintiff failed to prove any agreement for reconveyance or repayment of the loan. 2. Suit Under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940: The plaintiff claimed that the suit was under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, arguing that the transaction was a loan, hence falling under the Act's purview. The learned Sub-Judge, however, determined that the suit was for declaration and injunction under the Specific Relief Act, not under the Bengal Money Lenders Act. The court noted that the plaintiff did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Act, such as filing an application in the prescribed form for taking accounts and declaring the amount due. Therefore, the suit could not be treated as one under the Bengal Money Lenders Act. 3. Admissibility of Oral Evidence: The plaintiff argued that oral evidence should be admissible to prove the real nature of the transaction, citing Section 40(6) of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, which allows borrowers to provide oral evidence contradicting the terms of a document witnessing a loan. However, the court held that this provision applies only if the document in question creates or witnesses a loan, which was not established in this case. The impugned document did not indicate a loan transaction, and thus, the plaintiff could not rely on Section 40(6) to admit oral evidence. 4. Determining the Real Nature of the Transaction: The court examined whether the impugned transaction was a mortgage by conditional sale or an outright sale. The learned Sub-Judge found no evidence of an agreement for reconveyance or repayment, and the plaintiff failed to prove any stipulation for payment of interest. The court emphasized that the intention of the parties must be gathered from the document itself, and if the language is clear and unambiguous, extraneous evidence is not admissible. The impugned deed did not contain any terms indicating a mortgage by conditional sale, and the evidence suggested an absolute transfer of rights in the property. The court also considered factors such as possession and market value, concluding that the transaction was an outright sale, not a loan transaction. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming that the impugned transaction was an outright sale and not a mortgage by conditional sale. The suit was not under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, and the plaintiff could not rely on oral evidence to prove the real nature of the transaction. The court's decision was based on the clear and unambiguous language of the deed, the absence of any agreement for reconveyance, and the overall circumstances of the case.
|
