This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 63 of 1957 in the Court of the Munsiff, Gauhati. The plaintiffs' case is that plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 and the father of plaintiff No. 2 at first borrow­ed Rs. 200/- from defendant No. 1 by mortgaging the suit land. Later on, in order to pay up another debt, the aforesaid plaintiffs and the father of plaintiff No. 2 borrowed another Rs. 200/- from defendant No. 1 and executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage. Since then defendant No. 1 with the other defendants have been possessing the suit land by virtue of the mortgage. The plaintiffs came to know that under the provisions of the Assam Money Lenders' Act, the mortgage became redeemed on account of enjoyment of the suit land by the defendants for twelve years. So the plaintiffs asked the defendants to return the land to them, but the defendants contended that they purchased the land by a registered sale deed. Hence the suit for declaration that the said deed was an usufructuary mortgage deed and for khas possession of the suit laud. The case of the defendants is that plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 and the father of plaintiff No. 2 sold the suit land to the defendant long ago and executed a sale deed and got it registered. The suit land was mutated in the names of the defendants as the plaintiffs ad­mitted the sale before the Sub-Deputy Collector. The defendants have been enjoying possession of the land since purchase and the plaintiffs have been treating them as owners of the land. (2) The trial Court held that defendant No. 1 was holding the land as a mortgagee and decreed the suit. On an appeal the Additional Subordinate Judge, Lower Assam Districts, Gauhati held that the transac­tion was a sale and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were, therefore, set aside. (3) Exhibit 1 is the document which according to the plaintiffs is only a mortgage, whereas according to the defendants it discloses an out and out sale. It may, however, be noted that in the plaint it is con­tended that the document is a usufructuary mortgage whereas at the time of arguments it is submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the document only incor­porates a mortgage by conditional sale. It may, however, be noted that in the plaint it is con­tended that the document is a usufructuary mortgage whereas at the time of arguments it is submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the document only incor­porates a mortgage by conditional sale. The fact that the plaintiffs have described the alleged mortgage as an usufructuary mortgage in the plaint is immaterial. The only point before the Court is whether the docu­ment discloses a mortgage by conditional sale or a sale with a condition for repurchase. The document reads as follows :- "In favour of Sri Dhoni Ram Deka s/o late Mohimol Deka, by caste Kalita by occupation agri­culturist etc. of village Tulsikharikata, Mouza Karara, District Kamrup, Sub-Division Gauhati, Police Station Kamalpur. Executant Sri Rajat Chandra Deka, Sri Mohindra Ram Deka and Sri Bhobindra Nath Deka all sons of late Hiramol Gaonbura, by caste Kalita, by oc­cupation agriculturist, of village Tulsikharikata, Mouza Karara, Police Station Kamalpur, District Kamrup, Registration Office, Gauhati. This deed for sale of land witnesseth as follows : that we borrowed from you Rs. 200/- on 2nd of Ahar, 1340 B. S. by mortgaging land and being unable to pay the said amount and being in need of Rs. 200/- to pay the decretal amount of Jadunath Barua and land revenue we proposed to sell 21B. OK. 8 Lechas o[ our land described in Schedule below at Rs. 400/- and you having agreed to take we on receipt of Rs, 400/- (Rs, 200/- already taken and another Rs. 200/- taken today) sell this 21B. OK. 9L. of land and deliver possession of the same to you today. All our rights and interest over the land are determined from today and vested in you. You will enjoy the land from generation to generation with right of sale and gift and you will get your name registered in the Revenue Record and pay the Gov­ernment land Revenue. We or our heirs have no objection to this and if raised will be falsified and void on the strength of this deed. Be it mentioned that we shall get back the land if we can return this purchase price of Rs. 400/-within three years from today. Be it further mentioned that before this we have not transferred the land by sale or gift or encum­bered the same in any way. Be it mentioned that we shall get back the land if we can return this purchase price of Rs. 400/-within three years from today. Be it further mentioned that before this we have not transferred the land by sale or gift or encum­bered the same in any way. In case it is proved to have been done, we shall be liable according to law. Accordingly we execute this deed of sale of land with sound mind and full knowledge on receipt of the consideration in cash. Finish, 21-3-34." (4) The learned Advocate for the defendants submits that the learned Subordinate Judge clearly goes wrong when he says that the document (Ex. 1) describes the transaction as a sale out and out and hence there is a presumption in favour of a sale and that the burden lies on the plaintiff to rebut this presumption. It appears that the fact that the suit was brought after a considerable lapse of time after the expiry of the period for repurchase also weighed with the learned Judge in coming to his finding. The learned Advocate for the defendants has pointed out the view of the Supreme Court in Bhaskar Waman Joshi v. Shrinarayan Rambilas Agarwal, AIR 1980 S C 301, that subsequent conduct of the transferor as indicative of the character of the transaction as a sale, is inadmissible. (5) At this stage it will be convenient if section 58 (c) of the Transfer of Property Act which defines a mortgage by conditional sale is quoted. It is as follows : "58 (c). Where the mortgagor ostensibly sells the mortgaged property- on condition that on default of payment of the mortgage-money on a certain date the sale shall become absolute, or on condition that on such payment being made the sale shall become void, or on condition that on such payment being made the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller, the transaction is called a mortgage by condi­tional sale and the mortgagee a mortgagee by condi­tional sale : Provided that no such transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage, unless the condition is embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale." (6) The transaction contemplated in the above section is ostensibly a sale and the parties to it are described as "buyer" and "seller". It is, therefore, clear that simply because a document describes a transaction as sale, this by itself can raise no presumption that the transaction is a sale. So the Additional Subordinate Judge was wrong in making such a presumption. The law also seems well-settled after the view expressed in the aforesaid case by the Supreme Court, that subsequent conduct cannot be proved to show that the intention of the parties was something other than that expressed in the document. The intention of the parties must be gathered from the terms of the document itself and the surrounding circumstances. I may quote at some length the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above case viz., "In a sale coupled with an agreement to re convey there is no relation of debtor and creditor nor is the price charged upon the property conveyed, but the sale is subject to an obligation to retransfer the pro­perty within the period specified. What distinguishes the two transactions is the relationship of debtor and creditor and the transfer being a security for the debt. The form in which the deed is clothed is not decisive. The definition of a mortgage by conditional sale itself contemplates an ostensible sale of the property. As pointed out by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Narasingerji Gyanagerji v. P. Parthasaradhi, 51 Ind App 304 : (AIR 1924 P C 226), the circumstance that the transaction as phrased in the document is ostensibly a sale with a right of repurchase in the vendor, the appearance being laboriously maintained by the words of conveyance needlessly iterating the description of an absolute interest or the right of repurchase bearing the ap­pearance of a right in relation to the exercise of which time was of the essence is not decisive. The question in each case is one of determination of the real character of the transaction to be ascertained from the provisions of the deed viewed in the light of surrounding circumstances. If the words are plain and unambiguous they must in the light of the evi­dence of surrounding circumstances be given their true legal effect. The question in each case is one of determination of the real character of the transaction to be ascertained from the provisions of the deed viewed in the light of surrounding circumstances. If the words are plain and unambiguous they must in the light of the evi­dence of surrounding circumstances be given their true legal effect. If there is ambiguity in the language employed, the intention may be ascertained from the contents of the deed with such extrinsic evidence as may by law be permitted to be adduced to show in what manner the language of the deed was related to existing facts. Oral evidence of intention is not admissible in interpreting the covenants of the deed but evidence to explain or even to contradict the recitals as distinguished from the terms of the docu­ments may of course be given. Evidence of contem­poraneous conduct is always admissible as a sur­rounding circumstance, but evidence as to subsequent conduct of the parties is inadmissible." (7) Another point is to be noted. Under the proviso to section 58 (c) of the Transfer of Property Act, la document to be constructed as a mortgage by conditional sale, both the conditions of sale and repur­chase must be found in the same document as in the document before me. But the converse does not hold good and if both the conditions are incorporated in the same document, it does not necessarily mean [that it must be a mortgage and not a sale. (Vide 'Chunchun Jha v. Ebadat Ali, AIR 1954 S C S45). (8) In the light of the above discussion, I may .now examine the document before me. The document incorporates ostensibly-as such documents ordinarily do-an absolute sale of the land and further says that the transferor will get back the land if he could return the purchase price of Rs. 400/- within three years. There was no doubt a relationship of debtor and creditor between the parties existing at the date of the suit transaction. But it cannot be said that the bulk of the consideration went in satisfac­tion of the debt. The debt was only of Rs. 200/-whereas the price paid was Rs. 400/-. Moreover there is nothing to show that the price was inade­quate. The plaintiff in his deposition simply said that at the time of sale the price of the land was above Rs. The debt was only of Rs. 200/-whereas the price paid was Rs. 400/-. Moreover there is nothing to show that the price was inade­quate. The plaintiff in his deposition simply said that at the time of sale the price of the land was above Rs. 400/-, In the plaint it is said that the present value of the land is at least Rs. 2000/-. If this be so, the price of Rs. 400/- in 1934 cannot be said to be inadequate at all in view of the tremendous rise in the price of land all over the state in recent years. It is said that the transferor will get back the land if he is able to return the purchase money. This shows that the relationship of debtor and creditor between the transferor and the transferee cannot be held to have continued. In the result, the document must be regarded as one of sale. The appeal is, there­fore, dismissed with cost. Appeal dismissed.