SHIVAJI DAGADU MAHANGADE Vs. ABA GOPALA SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the Original Defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai and the dismissal of the Appeal filed by the Appellant by the District Judge, Satara. The Civil Judge decreed the suit holding that the Respondent - Plaintiff was entitled to redemption of mortgage, re-conveyance and possession of the suit property on his depositing the mortgage money of Rs.19,850/-. This judgment and decree has been confirmed by the District Judge.

(2.) The suit land is an agricultural land admeasuring 4 acres 3 gunthas bearing Gut No. 90 situated at Village Parkhandi, Taluka Wai, District Satara. The genesis of the dispute is a document dated 1 March, 1972. The Respondent filed a Suit bearing No. 254 of 1983 contending that by a mortgage dated 1 March, 1972, an amount of Rs. 19,850/- was received as a loan from the Appellant and since the relation between the parties were good, the Appellant was put in possession. In this mortgage deed it was agreed that, upon repayment of the loan amount, the Appellant would hand over the possession of the property. If the Respondent failed to pay the amount, within period of 10 years, then the document dated 1 March, 1972 was to be considered a sale-deed. It was the case of the Respondent that the Respondent on many occasions went to the Appellant to accept the amount as repayment and to re-convey the property but the Appellant avoided to do so. On these averments the Respondent filed the suit for redemption and re-conveyance.

(3.) A written statement was filed by the Appellant contending that by the document dated 1 March, 1972, the Respondent had agreed to sell the land to the Appellant. The document was a conditional sale-deed and the sale was absolute after the period of 10 years if no repayment was made. Only within the period of 10 years the Respondent had a right to re-purchase the land, which option was never exercised. It was contended that the Respondent had earlier filed a Suit bearing No. 275 of 1976 reforming the same document, which was dismissed. It was contended that the deed of 1 March, 1972 is not a document of mortgage but is of sale.