JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - The only question in this appeal filed by the unsuccessful Defendant in the Courts below is whether the suit document is a mortgage by conditional sale or a sale with a condition of re-purchase. 2. The facts that gave rise to this appeal may be briefly stated On June 30, 1915 the grand-father of the Plaintiffs executed a document which was registered on July 1, 1915, said to be by way of mortgage by conditional sale for a consideration of Rs. 100/- and gave possession of the suit lands to the father of Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiffs filed the suit for redemption on November 19, 1959. The defence is that the suit document ext. 1 is not a mortgage hut an out-and-out sale; that the option of repurchase has not been exercised, within 3 years and that the sale was complete and the right of re-purchase was extinguished. Both the Courts below found that the suit document was a mortgage and accordingly decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs. Hence this Second Appeal. 3. The language of ext. 1 as quoted in the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court is as follows: Now I being in need to meet the household expenses to repay the debts of the creditors and to meet the expenses of the litigation with Gobinda Giri and as I have found no other means to meet the aforesaid expenses, I really sell the 2 and 17? acres of land along with the standing crops for Rs. 100/-. Having received the entire consideration I make you the owner and you become the owner instead of myself. but upon the condition namely that in case I repay the consideration money given by you at the end of Magha 1325 V.S. (corresponding to 1918) next you will be bound to return to me the land and the kabala thereof. Should I fail to repay the consideration money as per stipulation above, you will possess and enjoy as before or your' son and heirs shall possess and enjoy from generation to generation till the sun and the moon endure and after making payment of the jama in the sherista of the zamindars of the mouza from year to year and getting your name mutated and you can use the land in any way you like. 4. 4. The question is Is it a sale or a mortgage? In a recent decision in Bhoju Mandal Vs. Debnath Bhagat, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had laid done the tests thus: There is a clear legal distinction between the two concepts, a mortgage by conditional sale and a sale with a condition of re-purchase. The former is a mortgage, the relationship of debtor and creditor subsists and the right to redeem remains with the debtor. The latter is an out-and-out sale whereby the owner transfers all his rights in the property to the purchaser reserving a personal right of re-purchase. The question to which category a document belongs presents a real difficulty which can only be solved by ascertaining the intention of the parties on a consideration of the contents of a document and other relevant circumstances. Decided cases have laid down many tests to ascertain the intentions of the parties but they are only illustrative and not exhaustive. For ascertaining the intention of the parties under one document a decision on a construction of the terms of another document cannot ordinarily afford any guidance unless the terms are exactly similar to each other. 5. What does the suit document show? It shows the postponement of absolute character of the legal title of the transferee till the expiry of a certain date, namely, 1325 V. Section (corresponding to 1918) and voidance of the entire transaction on repayment by the transferor. These two features are inconsistent with a sale and cannot, therefore, find place in a deed of actual sale. That is why Clause (c) of Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act has laid down those two features as appertaining to mortgage by conditional sale irrespective of the form and language of the document. Therefore if any disputed document is found, to have contained one or both of those conditions, it should be taken to be a mortgage by conditional sale and not an outright sale. The suit document for the most part of it had the form of a sale deed. There was a stipulation by which the transferor was entitled to pay back the consideration money to the transferee and get back the possession of the disputed property. The time by which such payment was to be made was also stated. The suit document for the most part of it had the form of a sale deed. There was a stipulation by which the transferor was entitled to pay back the consideration money to the transferee and get back the possession of the disputed property. The time by which such payment was to be made was also stated. It is clear from the terms of the document quoted above that if the transferor fails to pay the consideration money, the transferee shall possess and enjoy from generation to generation and thus no further deed of transfer was in contemplation. On the construction of the document the finding of the learned lower appealate Court is this: I have already indicated the condition that the land in the kabala will be returned on payment of the consideration. This will conclusively go to show that no other formality was intended to effectuate the transfer of the title from the vendee to the vendor. Secondly deferring of absolute proprietary right till the expiry of the stipulated period is sure test to come to a finding that the parties never intended to complete the sale transaction at the time of execution of ext. 1. The absence of any formality regarding reconveyance and the deferring of absolute right till the expiry of stipulated period in ext. 1 will lead to the irresistible conclusion that in the very beginning, that is, at the time of execution of ext. 1 it was a mortgage and not a sale. In my opinion, this view of the learned lower appellate Court that it is a mortgage and not a sale on the construction of the suit document is correct. His view satisfies the tests laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. 6. From the terms of the document it is clear that there is a relationship of a debtor and a creditor as between the transferor and the transferee. Thus reading the document as a whole I am satisfied that it is a mortgage by conditional sale within the meaning of Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act. 7. On a consideration of the cumulative effect of the terms of the document I agree with the concurrent view of the Courts below that the document in question is a mortgage by conditional sale. The decision of the Courts below is upheld, and this second appeal is dismissed. 7. On a consideration of the cumulative effect of the terms of the document I agree with the concurrent view of the Courts below that the document in question is a mortgage by conditional sale. The decision of the Courts below is upheld, and this second appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case I direct that parties will bear their own costs throughout. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed