(1.) - These two Second Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as the parties and the facts are the same. The facts giving rise to both the Second Appeals are as follows:-
(2.) Both the Courts below negatived the contention of the present appellant that the document dated 3.7.1974 was a sale with condition of re-purchase and they found that, in fact, it was only a mortgage with conditional sale and as such the original mortgagor or his successor-in-interest (the present respondent No. l) had right of redemption.
(3.) The only question to be decided in both the Second Appeals is as to whether the document dated 3.7.1974 was a sale with condition of re-purchase or a mortgage with conditional sale. Law is well settled that the nature of a transaction is to be ascertained from the intention of the parties to the document and if the recitals of a document are clear and unambiguous, the intention of the parties has to be gathered from the recitals of the document itself. However, if the recitals are ambiguous, the surrounding circumstances may be looked into for ascertaining the true nature of a transaction. It is also clear that the mere form in which a deal is clothed is not decisive. The document marked as Ext. 1 was styled as 'Condition Kraya Dalil'. The recitals of Ext. 1 indicate that the original owner executed the document for himself and his minor son for Rs. 3,000.00 on condition that the present appellant would possess the said property by paying tax and other charge etcetera. It is further recited that in case the executant and his son would repay Rs. 3,000.00 on or before 3.7.1979, the factum of repayment should be endorsed on the document and a receipt should be granted and possession should be re-delivered to the executants and in case they failed to repay the amount by 3.7.1979, they would execute a sale deed for Rs. 3,000.00 or for consideration to be decided by four gentlemen and from that day the present appellant would enjoy the said property as purchaser.