2004 (12) TMI 739 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

ISSUES:

• Whether the transaction in question constitutes a mortgage by conditional sale or an outright sale with a condition of repurchase.
• Whether oral evidence can be preferred over clear and unassailable documentary evidence in interpreting the nature of the transaction.
• Whether the principle of promissory estoppel was ignored in the courts below.
• Whether the right of redemption under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was extinguished by the parties' agreement or lapse of time.
• Whether the courts below misread, misinterpreted, or overlooked documentary evidence rendering their findings illegal, perverse, or unsustainable.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

• The transaction was held to be a mortgage by conditional sale and not an outright sale; the property was mortgaged for ? 16,999/- against a value of ? 60,000/-, supporting the mortgage character of the transaction.
• The courts below properly considered both oral and documentary evidence and did not err in giving weight to oral testimony alongside documents; the contention that oral evidence was wrongly preferred over documentary evidence was rejected.
• The principle of promissory estoppel was not applicable as there was no admission by the plaintiff amounting to estoppel; the order of the competent authority granting permission to "sell" did not constitute an admission of sale by the plaintiff.
• The right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is a statutory and legal right which cannot be extinguished by any agreement; since no decree of foreclosure was obtained, the right of redemption remained alive and was not extinguished by lapse of seven years.
• The finding of the courts below were concurrent, based on evidence, and not perverse or unsustainable; the appeal was dismissed with costs.

RATIONALE:

• The Court applied the definitions and provisions of Sections 58, 59, and 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to determine the nature of the transaction, emphasizing that a mortgage by conditional sale requires the condition to be embodied in the registered document.
• The Court relied on the principle that the real intention of the parties governs the classification of the transaction rather than mere nomenclature of the document.
• Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, was considered regarding the necessity of prior permission for transfer of urban land, but the order granting permission did not amount to admission of sale by the plaintiff.
• Precedents were considered establishing that the right of redemption is a statutory right that cannot be extinguished by contract and that a mortgagee by conditional sale cannot become absolute owner without foreclosure decree.
• The Court rejected the argument that oral evidence cannot be considered to interpret the terms of a registered document, holding that both oral and documentary evidence were properly weighed by the courts below.
• The Court noted that admissions made in pleadings and statements in related suits are binding and relevant, distinguishing such admissions from subsequent conduct or res judicata.