CHIKKA VENKATAPPA Vs. PAPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed against him by the Civil Judge, Kolar in Regular Appeal No. 110 of 1959 by which the learned Judge directed a preliminary decree for redemption to be passed against him.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff instituted O.S. 429 of 1958 alleging that the sale-deed executed by him in favour of the defendant for Rs. 500 on 7-5-1955 conveying Survey Nos. 68/1 and 69/1 situated at Lakkur in Malur Taluka was in reality a mortgage. According to him, there was an oral agreement at the time of settlement of the transaction between himself and the defendant to the effect that the latter should reconvey the property on receiving Rs. 500/- with interest at 9% per annum. He prayed for a decree for redemption, or, in the alternative, a decree directing the defendant to reconvey the schedule properties after receiving the amount due to him. The defendant denied the oral agreement and contended that he was the absolute owner of the suit properties not liable to reconvey the same to the plaintiff.

(3.) It is admitted that the plaintiff is an agriculturist. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff was not worthy of belief and that he had failed to establish the alleged oral agreement to reconvey. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the learned Civil Judge was of the view, that the plaintiff could not claim the benefit of S. 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act as the alleged oral agreement to reconvey had not been embodied in the sale-deed. He however came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to claim the benefit of S. 5 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act and that the oral evidence was meant to be a security for the loan. He accordingly passed a decree for redemption.