Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and Another
AIR 1999 SC 1441
Quick Summary
The dispute was about a 4.04-acre part of Survey No. 15. Defendant 2 first executed a kararkharedi with Defendant 1 for ₹1,500 with a buy-back window. Later, Defendant 2 sold the land to the plaintiff for ₹5,000. The plaintiff said the first document was a mortgage by conditional sale and sought redemption or, if treated as an outright sale, reconveyance. The Supreme Court restored the lower appellate decree in the plaintiff’s favour and set aside the High Court’s directions.
vidhyadhar-v-manikrao-and-another
Publish date: 2025-11-01
Court: Supreme Court of India
Issues
- Did Defendant 2 mortgage the field to Defendant 1 for ₹1,500 on 24-03-1971?
- Did the plaintiff purchase the field from Defendant 2 for ₹5,000 on 19-06-1973?
- Is the plaintiff entitled to redeem the mortgage?
- Was Defendant 2 ready and willing to buy back before 15-03-1973?
- Can the plaintiff seek retransfer from Defendant 1?
Rules
A defendant may raise any lawful plea to defeat the suit. This includes saying that the plaintiff’s sale deed is void, fictitious, or collusive, and not meant to be acted upon. Courts will look at substance (moneylending, possession, tender) to decide whether a document is a mortgage by conditional sale or an out-and-out sale.
Facts — Timeline
24-03-1971: Defendant 2 executes kararkharedi in favour of Defendant 1 for ₹1,500 and gives possession; buy-back if money returned before 15-03-1973.
05-06-1973: Defendant 2 sends notice to Defendant 1; 07-06-1973 money order allegedly sent and refused.
19-06-1973: Defendant 2 executes a registered sale deed to the plaintiff for ₹5,000.
The plaintiff files suit for redemption (treating earlier document as mortgage) or, alternatively, for reconveyance if treated as sale.
Defendant 2 admits the plaintiff’s claim. Defendant 1 contests, saying it was an outright sale and time for buy-back lapsed.
High Court reshapes relief based on amounts allegedly paid (₹800/₹500). It orders restoration to Defendant 2 with instalment repayments.
Supreme Court: Allows the appeal; sets aside the High Court; restores the lower appellate decree (no costs).
Arguments
Plaintiff (Vidhyadhar)
- Mortgage by conditional sale: earlier document secured a loan; thus redeemable.
- Tender & readiness: money offered; refusal by Defendant 1; plaintiff remains ready to pay.
- Alternate relief: if sale, then reconveyance due to timely tender and willingness.
Defendant 1 (Manikrao)
- Document was an absolute sale, not a mortgage.
- Time bar: buy-back date passed; no reconveyance right survives.
- Consideration paid: denies moneylending character; challenges plaintiff’s payments.
Judgment
- Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment.
- Lower appellate decree restored without costs.
- Defendant’s pleas valid in law: A defendant can challenge the plaintiff’s title deed as void/fictitious/collusive to defeat the suit.
- Moneylending character noted: The earlier transaction bore features of a mortgage by conditional sale, supporting redemption/reconveyance reliefs.
Ratio
Substance over form: where a “sale” secures a debt with a right to repurchase, courts may treat it as a mortgage by conditional sale. A defendant can lawfully plead that the plaintiff’s deed is invalid or sham to defeat the claim.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies defence strategy: defendants may attack the plaintiff’s deed itself.
- Guides identification of mortgage by conditional sale versus outright sale.
- Shows how tender, notices, and readiness affect reconveyance/redemption claims.
Key Takeaways
- Defendants can raise any lawful plea, including invalidity of the plaintiff’s deed.
- Form of the document is not final—substance decides mortgage vs sale.
- Tender and readiness strengthen rights to redeem or reconvey.
- Appellate review may restore relief if the High Court misreads payments or nature of the deal.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “MOR-RECON-PLEA”
- MOR — Mortgage by conditional sale (look at substance).
- RECON — Reconvey if treated as sale and tender made.
- PLEA — Defendant’s plea can attack plaintiff’s deed.
3-Step Hook: Identify the document’s nature → Prove tender/readiness → Use lawful pleas to secure proper relief.
IRAC Outline
Issue: Was the 1971 document a mortgage by conditional sale and could the plaintiff redeem or seek reconveyance?
Rule: Defendant may plead deed invalidity; courts prefer substance to form in mortgage/sale disputes.
Application: Notice, tender attempts, and moneylending character supported mortgage view and plaintiff’s readiness.
Conclusion: Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the lower appellate decree (no costs).
Glossary
- Mortgage by Conditional Sale
- A loan secured by a ‘sale’ with a repurchase clause; in substance a mortgage, not an outright transfer.
- Reconveyance
- Return of title to the original owner/transferee after fulfilling agreed conditions.
- Tender
- A valid offer to pay the amount due; supports readiness and willingness.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now