Holding

A transaction consisting of a sale deed and a separate agreement of reconveyance, where the condition is not embodied in the same document, does not amount to a mortgage by conditional sale and consequently the agreement of reconveyance is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

Summary

The appellants sold land to the respondents by a deed dated 29‑11‑1966, which was registered on 17‑12‑1966. On the same day the respondents executed a separate agreement of reconveyance, promising to return the land after five years upon receipt of the purchase price. The respondents failed to reconvey, leading the appellants to sue for specific performance. The lower courts held that the reconveyance agreement was part of the same transaction and, because it was not registered, was inadmissible. The Supreme Court examined whether the two documents amounted to a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act and whether the reconveyance agreement required compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. It held that because the condition was not embodied in the same document, the transaction was not a mortgage by conditional sale but a simple sale coupled with a reconveyance agreement, and therefore the reconveyance deed was not compulsorily registrable. The Court also noted the unresolved benami issue and remitted the matter to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed and the impugned judgments set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a sale deed and a separate agreement of reconveyance, executed on different dates and places, constitute a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act.
Whether the agreement of reconveyance is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act.
Whether the lack of registration of the reconveyance agreement renders it inadmissible as evidence.
Whether the execution of the reconveyance deed by only one of the vendees (benami allegation) affects the grant of specific performance.

Legislation cited

Registration Act, 1908s. 17
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 58(c)

Subjects

mortgage by conditional salesale deedagreement of reconveyancecompulsory registrationTransfer of Property ActRegistration Actbenamispecific performance

Judgment

MANJABAI KRISHNA PATIL (D) BY LRS. A
v.
RAGHUNATH REV AJI PATIL AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 20, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

Transfer of Property Act, I 882-s.58(c), proviso-Mortgage by
conditional sale-Requirements for-On facts, deed of sale of property
followed by an agreement ofre-conveyance-Documents executed on different C
dates and different places-Held: The transaction cannot be held to be a
mortgage by conditional sale, since no condition was embodied in the
document which effected or purported to effect the sale-Agreement of
reconveyance hence not required to be compulsorily registered-Registration
Act-Section 17.
D
Appellants executed a sale deed in favour of the two Respondents on
29-11-1966 which was registered on 17-12-1966. On the same day an
agreement of re-conveyance was also executed under which Respondents
agreed to convey the property back to Appellant after five years. As the
Respondents failed/neglected to act in terms of the re-conveyance agreement,
a suit for specific performance was filed by the Appellants against the E
Respondents. The suit was decreed. The First Appellate Court held that the
Appellants were not ready to perform their part, however, rejected the
contention of Respondent that time was essence of contract. High Court, in
second appea~ held that the re-conveyance agreement was part and parcel of
same transaction and being compulsorily registerable; for want of registration, F
the same was not admissible in evidence, and dismissed the appeal

In appeal to this Court it was contended by the appellants that keeping
in view the fact that the deed of sale was executed on 29.11.1966, and the
agreement of re-conveyance was executed on 17.12.1966, the same was not
required to be registered. Respondents on the other hand contended that G
although the sale deed was executed on 29.11.1966, but having been registered
../ on 17.12.1966 itself on which date the agreement of reconveyancew~s .
executed, the same must be held to be a part of the same transaction arid,

951
+-
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.
7.
A thus, was compulsorily registerable.
+-
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the First Appellate
Court, the Court

HELD: 1. Two documents were executed on different dates and at
B different places. Whereas the deed of sale was executed at Tai. Raver, the
purported agreement of reconveyance was executed at Waghad where the
registration office was situated. (Para 8) (955-DJ

2. By rei.son of the sale deed dated 29.11.1966, the respondents obtained > •

possession of the entire suit property. The property was transferred absolutely
c so as to enable the vendee to use the same till their life time as. also by their
legal representatives. Appellants declared that they would have no right, title
and interest in the said land, nor they would have ownership right and in case
.,_.
anyone claimed any such right, the same would be treated as cancelled. An
easemental')' right was also conveyed. It was stipulated that the land was not
D encumbered. as the mortgage which had been created in respect of the said
land, has been redeemed and in the event "anything is found", 'they would be
responsible for the same'. The amount of consideration was received on
different dates at different places. The said deed must, therefore, be construed
to be a deed of absolute sale. [Paras 9, 1OJ (955-E-G) 'f'

E 3. Furthermore, Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
provides for satisfaction of the conditions for mortgage by way of conditional
sale. Proviso appended to Section 58(c) is clear and unambiguous. A legal
fiction is created thereby that the transaction shall not be held to be a mortgage
by conditional sale, unless a condition is embodied in the document which
effects or purports to effect the sale. Where two documents are executed, the
F transaction in question would not amount to a mortgage by way of conditional 'r
sale. In a case of this nature, ordinarily the same would be considered to be '"
a deed of sale coupled with an agreement of reconveyance. In the instant case,
no relationship of debtor or creditor came into being. No security was created
and in fact conveyance of the title of the property by the respondent to the
G appellant was final and absolute. [Paras 11, 12, 17) (955-H; 956-D-E; 958-C(
Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Prasad and Anr., (2006) 4 SCC
432; Mushir Mohammed Khan (Dead) By L.Rs. v. Sajeda Bano (Smt.) and
.. '-

Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 536; Pandit Chunchun Jha v. Sk. Ebadat Ali and Anr.,
(19551SCR174: AIR (1954) SC 345; Shri Bhaskar Waman Joshi (deceased)
H
MANJABAI KRISHNA PATIL(D) BY LRS. v. RAGHUNATH REVAJI PATIL [S.B. SINHA,J.) 953

' and Ors. v•. Shri Narayan Rambi/as Agarwal (deceased) and Ors., 119601 2 A
i SCR 117 and Tu/si and Ors. v. Chandrika Prasad and Ors., 12006) 8 SCC
322. referred to•

.4. Iii this case the transaction is not a mortgage by conditional sale and
having regard to the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act,
tile agreement of rMOnveyance was not compulsorily registerable. (Para 191 B
(958-El

Harkisandas Bhagvandas and Ors. v. Bai Dhanu, AIR (1926) Bombay
- .;.
. 497, referred to.

S. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that whereas the Deed c
of Sale was executed in favour of two persons; the purported agreement of
m:onveyance has been executed by only one of the veiidees, namely, Raghunath
Revaji Patil, who has been described as 'Benami'; but the same has not been
proved. High Court did not go into the aforementioned question. The interest
of justice will be subserved irthe matter is remitted to the First Appellate D
Court for. consideration of the matter afresh on the said question.
(Para 20, 211(958-F;959-BI
·~

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 854 of2007.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 2. 7.2004 of the High Court of E
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in S.A. NO. 449 of 2002.

Chinmoy Khaladkar and S.K. Nandy for the Appellants.

S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered ~y F
/
"""
S.B. SINHA, J : I. Leave granted ..

2. Appellants herein were owners of land bearing Survey No.198/3/2
admeasuring 2 acres at Village Waghad. They, being in need of money,
approached the respondents. On negotiations having been held in that behalf G
by and between the parties, a deed of sale was executed by the appellants
in favour of the respondents on 29.11.1966 for a sum ofRs.6,000/-. However,
the said deed was registered on 17.12.1966. On the same day an agreement
of reconveyance was also executed in terms whereof the respondents agreed
to convey the property back to the appellants herein after five years on H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A receipt of the amount of consideration specified therein. As the respondents
failed ~nd/or neglected to act in terms of the said agreement ofreconveyance,
a suit for specific performance was filed by the appellants herein against 'the
t
..
respondents .
/"-•,
' '
3. The said suit was decreed. However, on ·an· appeal preferr.ed
B thereag~inst by the respondents, 'the First Appellate Court; inter alia, . held
that the.appellants herein were not ready and willing to perform their part of
contrac!. The First Appellate Court, however, rejected the contention of the
respondents that time was of the essence of contract. The appeal was allowed,
stating : ', ;' · ·'"· -
c •I''~

· ·
.

"To sum lip, the agreement cifreconveyarii:e (exhibit'31) was the
.. '~part and parcel. of the agreement of 'sale evidence''by the sale deed
··;(exhibit 30), and for want ofregistration the plaintiff No. Z Pandharinath
':s"did not acquire any right on the basis of the said agreement of
·u reconveyancti. Moreover, the said agreement ofi'econv'eyance-is left
D ':'vague on vital and important points discussed above.· Respcinilent
No. 3 Vijayabai was not a party to the said agreeihent of revonveyance
i and it was not signed, by her. We have also seen above that the
,plaintiffs were n9t ready and willing to perform their part of contract.
. on' all these points, the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the
i)mit for specific performance. Relying. on all these circumstances
E .. discussed above, I do find that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim
• a decree for specific performance. Relying on all these circumstances
discussed above, I do find that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim
a decree for specific performance of contract."

4. In the Second Appeal filed by the appellants herein being aggrieved
F by and dissatisfied with the said judgment, the High Court also opined that
as the document of reconveyance was part and parcel of the same transaction
and being compulsorily registerable; for want of registration, the same was
neither. admissible in evidence nor enforceable through a court of law.
" ~ "

1
G· 5.-_° Mr. Chinmoy Khaladkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants, would submit that keeping in view the fact that the deed of
sale was executed on 29.11.1966, and the agreement of reconveyance was
l•·-r l
exec11!ed on 17.12.1966, the same_ was not required to be registered. ·

6:'Mr. S.V. Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
H r·1
MANJABAIKRISHNAPAT!L(D)BYLRS. v. RAGHUNATHREVAJIPATIL[S.B. S!NHA,J.] 955

respondents, on the other hand, submitted that although the sale deed was A
i' executed on 29.11.1966, but having been registered on 17.12.1966 itself on
which date the agreement of reconveyance was executed, the same must be
held to be a part of the same transaction and, thus, was compulsorily
registerable.

7. Jn this connection, our attention was drawn to the agreement of B
reconveyance dated 17.12.1966, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:

"I, above referred vendee write down that you above referred
- ....
vendor are selling the land to me for 6,000/- upon the condition that
after cultivation for 5 years this particular land would be reconveyed
to Pandrinath Ukhardu Patil as soon as he repays the amount i.e. c
6,0001-
'
But within 5 years all the earnings of the land would be enjoyed
by me as an in.terest."

8. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Two documents were D
executed on different dates and at different places. Whereas the deed of sale
.}
was executed at Tai. Raver, the purported agreement of reconveyance was
• executed at Waghad where the registration office was situated .

9. By reason of the sale deed dated 29.11.1966, the respondents obtained
possession of the entire suit property. The property was transferred absolutely E
so as to enable the vendee to use the same till their life time as also by their
legal representatives. Appellants declared that they would have no right, title
and interest in the said land, nor they would have ownership right and in case
anyone claimed any such right, the same would be treated as cancelled. An
...... easementary right was also conveyed. It was stipulated that the land was not F
' ,. encumbered as the mortgage which had been created in respect of the said
land, has been redeemed and in the event "anything is found", 'they would
be responsible for the same'.

1 10. The amount of consideration was received on different dates at

..
~
different places. The sitid deed must, therefore, be construed to be a deed of
absolute sale .

11. Furthermore, Section 58 (c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for
G

1 short, "the Act") provides for satisfaction of the conditions for mortgage by
way of conditional sale providing :
H
+-
I

956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A "(c) Mortgage by conditional sale.- Where, the mortgagor
ostensibly sells the mortgaged property t
on condition that on default of payment of the mortgage-money
on a certain date the sale shall become absolute, or
.. on condition that on such payment being made the sale shall
B
become void, or

on condition that on such payment being made the buyer shall
·-
transfer the property to the seller, ,._ -

the transaction is called mortgage by conditional sale and the . ;-
c mortgagee a mortgagee by conditional sale :

Provided that no such transaction shall be deemed to be a
mortgage, unless the condition is embodied in the document which
effects or purports to effect the sale."

D 12. Proviso appended to Section 58(c) is clear and unambiguous. A
'legal fiction is created thereby that the transaction shall not be held to be a
-i
mortgage by conditional sale, unless a condition is embodied in the document
which effects or purports to effect the sale. Where two documents are executed, ...
the transaction in question would not amount to a mortgage by way of )>-
conditional sale. In a case of this nature, ordinarily the same would be
E
considered to be a deed of sale coupled with an agreement of reconveyance. ~

13. This ~spect of the matter has been considered by this Court in
Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Prasad and Anr., [2006] 4 SCC 432,
wherein it was held :
F "A bare perusal of the said provision clearly shows that a mortgage
r ~

'
by conditional sale must be evidenced by one document whereas a
sale with a condition of retransfer may be evidenced by more than one
document. A sale with a condition of retransfer, is not mortgage. It is
.t
not a partial transfer. By reason of such a transfer all rights have been
.,.
G transferred reserving only a personal right to the purchaser (sic seller),
and such a personal right would be lost, unless the same is exercised
within the stipulated time." .-
~·""..

. )
14. In Mushir Mohammed Khan (Dead) By L.Rs. v. Sajeda Bano (Smt.) •

H
~-t-

MANJABAIKRISHNA PATIL(D)BYLRS. r. RAGHUNATHREVAJI PATIL[S.B. SINHA,!] 957

and Ors., [2000] 3 SCC 536, this Court referring to a well-known decision of A
Pandit Chunchun Jha v. Sk Ebadat Ali and Anr., [1955] SCR 174: AIR (1954)
SC 345 held:

- "14. Applying the principles laid down above, the two documents
read together would not constitute a mortgage as the condition of
repurchase is not contained in the same documents by which the B
property was sold. The proviso to clause (c) of Section 58 would
operate in the instant case also and the transaction between the
parties cannot be held to be a "mortgage by conditional sale.""
---1.

15. In Shri Bhaskar Waman Joshi (deceased) and Ors. v. Shri Narayan
Rambilas Agarwal (deceased) and Ors., [1960] 2SCRI17, it was observed: c
"The proviso to this clause was added by Act 20 of 1929. Prior
to the amendment there was a conflict of decisions on the question
whether the condition contained in a separate deed could be taken
into account in ascertaining whether a mortgage was intended by the
D
principal deed. The Legislature resolved this conflict by enacting that
a transaction shall not be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition
"' referred to in the clause is embodied in the document which effects
)"
or purports to effect the sale. But it does not follow that if the
condition is incorporated in the deed effecting or purporting to effect
a sale a mortgage transaction must of necessity have been intended. E
The question whether by the incorporation of such a condition a
transaction ostensibly of sale may be regarded as a mortgage is one
of intention of the parties to be gathered from the language of the
deed interpreted in the light of the surrounding circumstances. The
circumstance that the condition is incorporated in the sale deed must
~ undoubtedly be taken into account, but the value to be attached
F
;
thereto must vary with the degree of formality attending upon the
transaction. The definition of a mortgage by conditional sale postulates
the creation by the transfer of a relation of mortgagor and mortgagee,
the price being charged on the property conveyed. In a sale coupled
with an agreement to reconvey there is no relation of debtor and G
creditor nor is the price charged upon the property conveyed, but the
,,; sale is subject to an obligation to retransfer the property within the
" period specified. What distinguishes the two transactions is the
relationship of debtor and creditor and the transfer being a security

H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 2 S.C.R.

A for the debt. The form in which the deed is clothed is not decisive.
The definition of a mortgage by conditional sale itself contemplates
an ostensible sale of the property ..... "

16. In Tutsi and Ors. v. Chandrika Prasad and Ors., [2006] 8 SCC 322,
it was held:
B
"A distinction exists between a mortgage by way of conditional
sale and a sale with condition of purchase. In the former the debt
subsists and a right to redeem remains with the debtor but in case of
the latter the transaction does not evidence an arrangement oflending
and borrowing and, thus, right to redeem is not reserved thereby."
c
17. In the instant case, no relationship of debtor or creditor came into
being. No security was created and in fact conveyance of the title of the
property by the respondent to the appellant was final and absolute.

18. Reliance has been placed by the High Court on a Full Bench
D
decision of the Bombay High Court in Harkisandas Bhagvandas and Ors. v.
Bai Dhanu, AIR (1926) Bombay 497 wherein, it was held that if the transaction -!
is really one of mortgage then the second deed would be inadmissible for
want of registration; but where the transaction is not one of mortgage, the
second document would not need registration, even if it is a part of the same
E transaction of sale.

19. In this case also the transaction is not a mortgage by conditional
sale and having regard to the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Registration
·Act, the agreement of sale reconveyance was not compulsorily registerable.

F 20. It has further been brought to our notice that whereas the Deed of ;i-..
Sale was executed in favour of two persons; the purported agreement of
reconveyance has been executed by only one of the vendees,. namely,
Raghunath Revaji Patil, who has been described as 'Benami'; but the same
has not been proved. The High Court did not go into the aforementioned
G question stating :
"20. Once, this issue is answered in the negative, the issue, whether
execution by Defendant No. I alone (Defendant No. 2 has not signed
the reconveyance deed) would obstruct the court from granting a
decree for specific performance ofreconveyance, is not required to be
H considered since, a finding favourable to appellant on that issue is
MANJABAIKRISHNA PATIL(D)BYLRS. ,.. RAGHUNATHREVAJIPATIL[S B. SINHA,!.] 959

not going to make any favourable impact on the conclusion of the A
appeal."

21. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be
subserved if the matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court for consideration
of the matter afresh on the said question. The impugned judgments cannot
be sustained and are set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed and the B
matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court for consideration of the matter
afresh .

22. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no order as to
costs.
c
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.

••