RAMA DEVIversusDILIP SINGH

                               [2008) 5 S.C.R. 75

)
                                 RAMA DEVI                               A
                                       \/.
                                 DILIP SINGH
                       (Civil Appeal No. 4125 of 2001)

                              MARCH 14, 2008
                                                                         B
         [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

               Transfer of Property - Transfer of land with possession -
         By a Bhumidhar - Against a loan - Execution of Mortgage
         deed - Transferer filing suit seeking redemption of the         c
         mortgage - Trial Court as well as first and second appellate
         courts finding that the transaction was in fact a sale and not a
         conditional mortgage - On appeal, held: Transferer lost the
         right of redemption - Apart from concurrent finding that the
         transaction was a sale, even by virtue of s. 164 of Zamindari
                                                                          D
         Abolition Act, such transaction would be deemed to be a sale
         to the transferee - Uttar Pradesh Zaminidari Abolition and
         Land Reforms Act, 1951 - s. 164 - Transfer of Property Act,
         1882 - s. 58-C.
              Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms         E
         Act, 1951 - s, 155 rlw s. 166 ands. 164 - Applicability of -
         When - Discussed.
              Deeds and Documents - Interpretation of a document -
         A document should be construed and interpreted as a whole
         in order to arrive at its true meaning and import.              F

    ""        Appellant-plaintiff had executed a deed of conditional
         mortgage in favour of the respondent in respect of he land
         in question, against a loan taken from him. It was
         stipulated in the deed that if the loan amount with interest
                                                                      G
         was returned by her within a period of 5 years, the land
         would be re-conveyed to her. According to the appellant,
         within the period of 5 years, she requested the respondent
-r       to re-convey the land, but he refused. However, under
                                       75                                H
    76       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2008] 5 S.C.R.

                                                                  <.
A influence of local people, respondent returned the
  possession of the land to the appellant. Since the re-
  conveyance had not be!en executed by the respondent,
  the appellant filed a suit seeking decree for redemption
  of the conditional mortgage. Trial Court dismissed the suit
B holding that the document in question was not a
  mortgage but was in fa1::t a sale and that the possession
  of the land was with the respondent and hence
  respondent had no right to get the property redeemed.
  First appellate court dismissed the suit upholding the view
c of trial court and holding further that the deed would also
  be deemed to be a sale u/s 164 ofU.P. Zamindari Abolition
  and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Act being a special
  Act, would supercede the provisions of Transfer of
  Property Act; and thait appellant had not sought re-
  conveyance within 5 years. Second Appeal was aiso
D
  dismissed by High Court.
        In appeal to this Court appellant contended interalia
  that the transaction was a mortgage by way of conditional
  sale under Section 58-C of Transfer of Property Act; that
E she was entitled to redemption within a period of 30 years;
  and that Section 164 of Zamindari Abolition Act was not
  applicable in view of specific bar u/s 155 r/w s. 166 of
  Zaminidari Abolition Ac:t.
         Dismissing the appeal, the Court
F
       HELD: 1. The three courts below have examined the
  document and concluded that it was in fact a sale and
  not a mortgage, as understood under section 58-C of
  Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A document has to be
  construed and interprnted as a whole in order to arrive at
G
  a conclusion as to its true meaning and import and to
  determine whether it was a mortgage by way of
  conditional sale or a sale outright. It is apparent from the
                                                                   -r-
  evidence on record that the possession had been
  transferred to the respondent herein at the time of the
H
                 RAMA DEVI v. DILIP SINGH                   77

)
    execution of the document and the respondent continues A
    to be in possession as of today as per the findings of the
    three courts below. The Court is, therefore, disinclined
    to interfere with the findings of fact for these reasons.
    [Para 6] [81-G; 82-A, B]
          Chunchun Jha vs. Ebadat Ali and Anr AIR 1954 SC 345     B
    - relied on.
         2.1 Even otherwise assuming for a moment that the
    transaction was in fact a mortgage, the appellant has lost
    all her rights in the property by virtue of the deeming       c
    provisions in section 164 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
    Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (ZALR Act). [Para 7]
    [82-C]
         Smt. Bhagwatia vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation at
    Deoria and Ors. 1982 Allahabad L.J. 29; Safi Prasad and D
    Anr. vs. The Dy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur and Ors.
    1983 Allahabad L.J. 331 - affirmed.
         P.B.Maganbhai and Anr vs. P.K.Ambaram and Ors. 1997
    Allahabad LR. Vol. 29 - referred to.
                                                                  E
         2.2 A mortgage by conditional sale would be deemed
    to be a sale by fiction of law and that Section 155 of ZALR
    Act would not be applicable in the present case as interest
    in the property had also been transferred and possession
    handed over to the respondent whereas Section 155             F
    talked only about possession. [Para 8] [83-D, E]
          2.3 Section 155 of ZALR Act would apply to a
    mortgage where the possession of land has been
    transferred or is agreed to be transferred in the future as
    security for the money advanced or to be advanced and G
    it is such a transaction which is held to be void under
    Section 166 of ZALR Act. Section 164 of ZALR Act however
    talks about transfer of a holding or part thereof made by a
    bhumidhar by which possession has been transferred for
    the purpose of securing any payment of money etc. and H
    78        SUPREME COURT R.EPORTS                 (2008] 5 S.C.R.


A it says that notwithstanding anything contained in the
  document of transfer or any law for the time being in force,
  such a transaction would b1:! deemed to be a sale to the
  transferee and to every such sale the provisions of Section
  155 and Section 166 of 2'.ALR Act would not apply.
B [Para 9) [83-E, F, G; 84-A]
         CIVILAPPELLATE JURIS.DICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4125
    of 2001.
         From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2001 of
c   the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal
    No. 1043 of 1999.
        Manoj Swarup, Lalita Kohli and Charu Singhal (for Mis.
    Manoj Swarup and Co.) for the~ Appellant.
         T.N. Singh, V.K. Singh and S.N. Singh for the Respondent.
D
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. In this appeal by special leave
  the facts have been taken from the judgment of the first appellate
E Court as they have not been de~tailed in the judgment of the High
  Court.
        2. The plaintiff-appellant Rama Devi executed a mortgage/
  sale deed dated 15th May 1974 for 6 Big ha and 10 Biswas out
  of her total land area of 12 Bigha 1 Biswa for Rs.13,000/- as
F she needed funds for her business. In the document aforesaid,
  it was recited that in case the amount of Rs.13,000/- plus interest
  at the rate of 24% per annum was returned by her within a period
  of 5 years the land would be re,-conveyed to her. It is the case of
  the appellant that she had made a request to the respondent
G within the aforesaid period for re-transfer but the respondent
  had refused to accede therieto. This refusal prompted the
  appellant to issue two notice~s dated 27th April 1979 and 9th
  April 1981 to the respondent but he refused to accept the same
  but under the influence of the local people he returned the
H possession of the land to her in June 1984. As the necessary
                         RAMA DEVI v. DILIP SINGH                            79
                          [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

           re-conveyance had not been executed by the respondent, the              A
           appellant filed a suit praying that:
                (1)   A decree for redemption of the conditional mortgage
                      deed dated 15.4.1974, registered on 24th May 1974
                      be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the
                      defendant in respect of the property as detailed             B
_.,
                      below:
                      Property in dispute situated in Village Pokhrain, Tehsil
                      Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat - Area 6 Bighas
                      10 Biswas share out of 12 Big has 1 Biswa of Plot            c
                      No. 958.
                (2)   Relief of permanent injunction claimed restraining
                      the defendant from interfering in plaintiffs possession.
                3. The defendant respondent admitted the execution of
                                                                         D
           the document dated 15th May 1974 but contested the suit on
           various grounds. On the pleading of the parties the following
           issues were framed:
                1.    Whether the document dated 15.5. 74 executed
                      between the parties is a conditional Benama, as              E
                      has been stated by the plaintiff in para 1 of the petition
                      or it is of the nature of complete sale (out and out
                      sale with a condition of repurchase) as has been
                      stated by the defendant, its effect in both the
                      circumstances.                                               F
                2.    Whether the defendant in the month of June 1984
      '·              has returned the possession to the plaintiff and the
                      plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute. If yes,
                      then its effect.
                                                                                   G
                3.    Whether the suit for amendment (redemption) is not
                      maintainable in law.
                4.    Whether the deal in suit is a complete sale with the
                      effect of Zamindari Abolition Act.
                                                                                   H
                                                  \
    80         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2008) 5 S.C.R.


A         5.    Whether the plaintiff has not got done the re-~le
                within the prescribed time as has been stated by the
                defendant.
          6.    To what relief the plaint 'f is entitled to.

B         7.    What the defendant was in possession of thi
                agricultural land in dispute as a cultivator upto tht            ·-
                year 1984, as is the submission of the plaintiff.
          8.    Whether the defendant had got the document dated
                15.5.1974 in question executed in place of mortgage
c               on interest, as conditional sale, by way of conspiracy
                and fraud .............. in case yes, then its effect.
           4. The trial court in its judgment dated 20th March 1996
    decided issue Nos. 1 and 4 together and held that the document
    dated 15th May 1974 was not a mortgage but was in fact a sale
D
    and that the respondent continued to be in possession of the
    land in dispute: On issue Nos. 3 and 5, the learned trial Judge
    came to the cohclusion that the appellant did not have any right
    to get the property re-deemed and on issue No.7 reiterated that
    the document dated 15th May 1974 constituted a sale. On issue
E   No.8, the trial court held that there was no evidence of fraud etc.
    and accordingly dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 20th
    May 1996. An appeal was thereafter filed by the unsuccessful
    plaintiff. The first appellate court framed two points for
    consideration and after examining the contents of the document
F   dated 15th May 1974 and the evidence of the parties, endorsed
    the findings of the trial court that the document aforesaid was in
    fact a deed of sale and not a mortgage and would also be
    deemed to be a sale under section 164 of the U.P. Zamindari
    Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 ( hereinafter called the
G   "Act") and as this was a sper:::ial Act. it would supercede all others
    and as such the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act would
    not be applicable. It was furiher concluded that as the appellant
    had not sought the re-conveyance within 5 years, as stipulated           t
    in tbe agreement of 15th May 1974 she had in any case lost her
H   right to the re-conveyance. The argument of the learned counsel
                RAMA DEVI v. DILIP SINGH                      81
                 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

  for the appellant that as section 155 of the Act placed an A
  embargo on the transfer of agricultural land by a Bhumidhar
  which made the transaction of 15th May 1974 nonest in view of
  the provisions of section 166 of the Act, was also repelled by
  observing that section 155 would have no applicability in such
  a case. The first appellate court accordingly dismissed the      s
  appeal leading to a second appeal in the Allahabad High Court.
  The learned Judge by his order dated 25th January 2001
  accepted the findings recorded by the two subordinate courts
  and dismissed the appeal. The present matter is here at the
  instance of the plaintiff.                                       c
          5. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised several
    arguments in the course of the hearing. He has pointed out that
    the transaction of 15th May 1974 was a mortgage by way of
    conditional sale as envisaged under Section 58-C of the Transfer
    of Property Act and as such the appellant was entitled to seek D
    its redemption within a period of 30 years and the findings of
    the courts below to the contrary limiting the period to 5 years
   was erroneous. It has also been reiterated that Section 164 of
    the Act was not applicable in view of the specific bar under
    Section 155 read with Section 166 on the transfer of possession E
    of land by a Bhumidhar in order to secure a debt. The learned
    counsel for the respondent has, however, pointed out that there
   was a concurrent finding of fact that the transaction of 15th May
    1974 was in fact a sale outright and as such the question of re-
  . conveyance within 5 years or 30 years had to be ruled out. It F
, has also been argued that even assuming that the aforesaid
    document constituted a mortgage, yet by the deeming provisions
    of Section 164, such mortgage would be deemed to be a sale
    in the hands of the transferee and as such the appellant had lost
    all her rights in the land in question.
                                                                   G
        6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
  gone through the record. The three courts below have examined
  the document dated 15th May 1974 and concluded that it was in
  fact a sale and not a mortgage, as understood under section
  58-C. In Chunchun Jha vs. Ebadat Ali & Anr. AIR 1954 SC          H
    82        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A 345, this Court has held that a document has to be construed
  and interpreted as a whole in order to arrive at a conclusion as
  to its true meaning and import and to determine whether it was
  a mortgage by way of conditional sale or a sale outright. We
  also find from the evidence on record that the possession had
B been transferred to the respondent herein at the time of the
  execution of the document on 15th May 1974 and the respondent
  continues to be in possession as of today as per the findings of
  the three courts below. We are, therefore, disinclined to interfere
  with the findings of fact for these reasons.
c         7. Even otherwise assuming for a moment that the
    transaction was in fact a mortgage, the appellant has lost all her
    rights in the property by virtue of the deeming provisions in
    section 164 of the Act. W1e reproduce Sections 155, 164 and
    166 of the Act herein below:
D
         "Sec.155. Mortgage of land by a bhumidhar. - No
         bhumidhar shall have the right to mortgage any land
         belonging to him a such where possession of the
         mortgaged land is transferred or is agreed to be
         transferred in future to the mortgagee as security for the
E        money advanced or to be advanced.
                                                     "
         Sec.164. Transfer with possession by a bhumidhar to be
         deemed a sale. -Any transfer of any holding or part thereof
         made by a bhumidhar by which possession is transferred
F        to the transferee for the purpose of securing any payment
         of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, and
         existing or future debt or the performance of an engagement
         which may give rise to a pecuniary liability, shall,
         notwithstanding anything contained in the document of
         transfer or any law for the time being in force, be deemed
G
         at all times and for all purposes to be a sale to the
         transferee and to every such sale the provisions of sections
         154 and 163 shall apply.
                                                                           t
         Sec.166. Transfer made in contravention of the Act to be
H        void. - [Every transfer made in contravention of the
                                                 \
              RAMA DEVI v. DILIP SINGH                      83
               [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

     provisions of this Act shall be void.]"                     A
      8. Relying on the express embargo placed by Section 155,
Mr. Swarup has argued that as the land had been mortgaged
by a Bhumidhar contrary to the provisions of Section 155, the
said transaction was deemed to be void in terms of section
166. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance 8
on P.B.Maganbhai & Anr. vs. P.K.Ambaram & Ors. 1997
Allahabad L.R. Vol. 29, P.627. It has also been submitted that
the very wording of section 164 showed that certain kinds of
transactions would be deemed to be sales and as the finding of
the courts below was that the agreement of 15th May 1974 was C
in fact a sale, the question of any deeming provision identifying
a sale transaction as a deemed sale would not arise. The learned
counsel for the respondent has, however placed reliance on Smt.
Bhagwatia vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation at Deoria &
Ors. 1982 Allahabad L.J. 29 and Sati Prasad & Anr. Vs. The D
Dy. Director of Consolidation, Kanpur & Ors. 1983
Allahabad L.J. 331 to contend that a mortgage by conditional
sale would be deemed to be a sale by fiction of law and that
section 155 of the Act would not be applicable in the present
case as interest in the property had also been transferred and E
possession handed over to the respondent whereas section
155 talked only about possession.

      9. We have considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties. A bare perusal of section 155
would reveal that it would apply to a mortgage where the F
possession of land has been transferred or is agreed to be
transferred in the future as security for the money advanced or
to be advanced and it is such a transaction which is held to be
void under section 166. Section 164 however talks about transfer
of a holding or part thereof made by a bhumidhar by which G
possession has been transferred for the purpose of securing
any payment_ of money etc. and it says that notwithstanding
anything contained in the document of transfer or any law for the
time being in force, such a transaction would be deemed to be
a sale to the transferee and to every such sale the provisions of H
    84       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A Section 155 and section 1615 would not apply. We find that the
  respondent's stand is supported by the judgments that have been
  cited. In Bhagwatia's case (supra), the petitioner's husband
  executed a usufructuary mortgage deed and possession had
  also been transferred to the mortgagee for securing re-payment
s of the loan. The learned Judge held that this mortgage would be
  deemed to a sale under section 164 of the Act. While dealing
  with an identical situation and to Section 164 this is what the
  learned Single Judge had to say:
         "It is apparent from the aforesaid section that the
C        usufructuary mortgage of Bhumidhari land, where
         possession is transferred as security for payment of loan,
         would be covered by the provisions of S.164 and
         notwithstanding anything contained in the document of
         transfer or any law for the time being in force, it would be
D        deemed to be sale to the transferee itself. It, therefore,
         follows that the covenant contained in the usufructuary
         mortgage deed in qUE~stion that the mortgagor would be
         entitled to redeem the property by making payment of
         loan and within a period of three years is of no
E        consequence as the transfer by way of usufructuary
         mortgage in question would be deemed to be sale under
         S.164 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
         Act.
         In the aforesaid case the question regarding legal status
F        of the person who was put in possession in lieu of the
         interest was considered in the light of provisions of the
         U.P. Tenancy Act which was then in force when the
         possession was transferred to the creditor and his
         possession was considered to be on behalf of the owner
G        himself. In the above mentioned case the interpretation of
         the S.164 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
         Reforms Act was not involved nor was it dealt with. The
         provisions of S.164 of the said Act were not attracted to
                                                                         f
         the facts of the aforesaid case. The aforesaid case is thus
H        clearly distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of
               RAMA DEVI v. DILIP SINGH                        85
                [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
)'
      the present case, where the question is involved is            A
      whether usufructuary mortgage would or would not be
      deemed to be a sale as provided under S.164 of the said
      Act.
      Under S.164 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
      Reforms Act it is provided that such a transaction would       8
J..

      be deemed at all times and for all purposes to be sale to
      the transferee. It thus follows that it would be deemed to
      be sale from the very inception i.e. from the date of
      execution of the usufructuary mortgage and transfer of
      possession in pursuance thereof to the mortgagee. The          c
      provisions of S.60 of the Transfer of Property Act would,
      therefore, not be applicable to such mortgage and the
      mortgager will have no right to redeem the mortgage and
      to claim possession from the mortgagee by offering to
      make payment of loan amount. The aforesaid statutory           D
      right of redemption as provided under section 60 of the
      Transfer of Property Act would not be available to the
      mortgager Bhumidhar in view of the provisions of S.164
      of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
      according to which for all times and for all purposes it       E
      would be deemed sale to the transferee. If the transfer
      amounts to sale by legal fiction under the aforesaid
      deeming provision, the transferor would be left with no
      right to redeem the property in question. The provisions
      with regard to the rights of mortgagor and mortgagee           F
      contained in the Chapter IV of the Transfer of Property Act
 \
      would not apply to such mortgages which are hit by the
      provisions of S.164 of the U.P. Zamindri Abolition and
      Land Reforms Act.
      A deeming provision in a statute postulates that a thing       G
      deemed to be something else is not, in fact, the thing
      which it is deemed to be something else, it is to be treated
 .    as if it is that thing, though in fact it is not."
      10. We respectfully agree with the observations aforesaid
                                                                     H
    86        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A and find them to be fully applicable to the facts of the present
  case. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that
  there could be no deemE~d sale under Section 164 of the Act,
  has also to be repelled in the light of the aforesaid observations.
  The judgment cited by the! learned counsel for the appellant also
B has no relevance to the facts of this case. In view of the above
  findings, we are of the opinion that no further issue arises. We
  accordingly dismiss the appeal.
    K.K.T.                                      Appeal dismissed.