Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

NATURE OF TRANSACTION DECIDING FACTOR - WHETHER MORTGAGE OR SALE – CAL. HC

04 September 2024 10:38 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Calcutta High Court, presided by the Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, ruled in favor of the defendant, affirming that the disputed transaction was a sale and not a mortgage. The case, S.A. 132 of 2018, involved a dispute over a property located within Mouza Mouligram, wherein the plaintiff claimed the property was mortgaged, while the defendant asserted that it was sold to him through a registered deed.

The court examined the evidence and legal provisions to determine the nature of the transaction. The plaintiffs' counsel argued that the transaction was a loan despite the presence of a registered deed of sale, relying on Section 40(6) of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, which allows oral evidence in certain loan transactions. However, the court invoked Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which bars admission of oral evidence to contradict the contents of a registered deed of sale, emphasizing that this provision does not apply to sale transactions.

Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, while delivering the judgment, stated, "The bar under Section 92 would apply when a party to the instrument, relying on the instrument, seeks to prove that the terms of the transaction covered by the instrument are different from what is contained in the instrument. It will not apply where anyone, including a party to the instrument, seeks to establish that the transaction itself is different from what it purports to be."

Furthermore, the court considered the issue of limitation, pointing out that the plaintiff had previously filed a similar case under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, which was withdrawn. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff could not maintain the current suit, as it sought identical relief in a roundabout manner.

High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, confirming the transaction as a sale and not a mortgage. The ruling emphasizes the importance of clearly documenting transactions to avoid disputes and the significance of adhering to the prescribed legal procedures.

Date of Decision: 19th July, 2023

RANJANA MONDAL & ORS.  vs KISHORI MOHAN SAMANTA 

Latest Legal News