Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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