G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He has lost in both the courts below. The substantial question of law as arising in this appeal is as to whether the conveyance dated 29-1-1964 under Ex. D-2, between the parties is a mortgage by conditional sale or a sale with a condition of repurchase. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF had a loan account with the respondent-Bank having an out standing loan of Rs. 10,995. 24 as on 29-1-1962. The plaintiff mortgaged the suit property in favour of the Bank by way of security as per Ex-D-1 with an undertaking to clear the loan within 2 years. As on 29-1-1964, the balance due from the plaintiff to the Bank was Rs 10,000/ -. Since he could not pay the debt, he entered into a transaction as evidenced by the document ex. D-2 for a consideration of Rs. 13,000/- with the respondent-Bank. Out of which Rs. 10,000/- was adjusted against the existing loan and Rs. 3,000/- was paid to the plaintiff in cash. The plaintiff apparently intended to sell the suit property to the defendant for a consideration with a condition that if he pays Rs 13,000/- along with all the expenses incurred i. e. , taxes, insurance charges and repairs, within 5 years, the property will be reconveyed in his favour. Otherwise, after the stipulated period, the sale was to become absolute. ( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the plaintiff could not pay the amounts as per Ex. D-2 within a stipulated period of 5 years. Instead, he instituted the present suit on 22-8-1974 for redemption of mortgage on the plea that the transaction in question was a mortgage by conditional sale. Defendant contested the suit contending that the transaction was one of sale with a condition to repurchase. Both the Courts below on an examination of the contents of Ex. D-2 and the circumstances appearing in the case as per the evidence led by the contesting parties, took the view that Ex. D-2 is a transaction of sale with a condition to repurchase and not a mortgage as claimed by the plaintiff, and accordingly, the suit and appeal were dismissed. D-2 and the circumstances appearing in the case as per the evidence led by the contesting parties, took the view that Ex. D-2 is a transaction of sale with a condition to repurchase and not a mortgage as claimed by the plaintiff, and accordingly, the suit and appeal were dismissed. ( 4 ) IT may be relevant to state here that prior to the institution of the present suit, the defendant-Bank had instituted L. C. No. 101/1965 against the present plaintiff for recovery of rent and mesne profits in respect of the suit property which was decreed on 25-11-1985 and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff in R. A no. 16/68 was dismissed. In this proceeding it was judicially determined that after the execution of Ex. D-2, the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff was that of landlord and tenant. The present suit was brought about by the plaintiff only after he had lost in the previous proceedings. ( 5 ) BEFORE proceeding to examine the rival contentions canvassed by the parties in relation to the documents in question, in my opinion, it would be better to examine the law laid down in this regard by the Supreme Court in the case of chunchun Jah v Ebadat Ali and Another. While dealing with the question similar to the one at hand, it has been held by their lordships in paragraph 6 that:". . . where a document has to be construed, the intention must be gathered, in the first place, from the document itself. If the words are express and clear, effect must be given to them and any extraneous enquiry into what was thought or intended is ruled out. The real question in such a case is not what the parties intended or meant but what is the legal effect of the words which they used. If however, there is ambiguity in the language employed, then it is permissible to look to the surrounding circumstances to determine what was intended. "in the case of P. L. Bapuswamy v N. Pattay Gounder, it has been held that "the definition of 'mortgage by conditional sale' postulates the creation by the transfer of a relation of mortgagor and mortgagee, the price being charged on the property conveyed. "in the case of P. L. Bapuswamy v N. Pattay Gounder, it has been held that "the definition of 'mortgage by conditional sale' postulates the creation by the transfer of a relation of mortgagor and mortgagee, the price being charged on the property conveyed. In a sale coupled with an agreement to reconvey, there is no relationship of debtor and creditor but the sale is subject to an obligation to retransfer the property within the period specified. The distinction between 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 question in each case is one of determination of the real character of the transaction to be ascertained from the provisions of the document viewed in the light of surrounding circumstances. If the language is plain and unambiguous, it must in the light of the evidence of surrounding circumstances be given its 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. " ( 6 ) IN the present case, the relevant extracts of English translation of the document Ex. D-2, which is in Kannada, is to the following effect:-"thus Item Nos. I, II and III are the subject matter of the sale deed, the reason for the executing of the sale deed is: I having taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the Bank and to secure the same on 30-1-1962 and to repay the same within two years that I have executed, registered simple mortgage deed. The said mortgage deed has been noted in kundgol Sub-Registrar's office book No. I Volume 83 at pages 248 to 250 under No. 503 and registered on 21-9-1962. I was not able to pay the mortgage debt, hence I had no other course except to sell the property and in case of such sale you offered the highest rate i. e. , Rs. 13,000/- and this price being proper that today for Rs. 13,000/- I have voluntarily executed the sale deed and delivered actual possession of the properties. I was not able to pay the mortgage debt, hence I had no other course except to sell the property and in case of such sale you offered the highest rate i. e. , Rs. 13,000/- and this price being proper that today for Rs. 13,000/- I have voluntarily executed the sale deed and delivered actual possession of the properties. " ( 7 ) ON a plain reading of the said document what transpires is that the plaintiff had entered into the transaction in question in order to liquidate the loan which he had taken from the defendant-Bank. The document also discloses that the transfer was made for a consideration which could have been best fetched. The plaintiff in the document also admits that Rs. 3,000/- which was over and above the debt of the Bank was received by him in cash. So far as the provision for reconveyance is concerned it was agreed that if the plaintiff repays Rs. 13,000/- along with all the expenses which the respondent-Bank had incurred by way of insurance charges, taxes, repairs, etc. , within 5 years, then the respondent-Bank will be obliged to reconvey the property in his favour. ( 8 ) IT has been found by the courts below that after execution of the documents Ex. p-2 respondent-Bank got itself mutated in the revenue records and since then they have been paying the taxes. It is also admitted that as provided in the sale document the Bank got possession over the property and the plaintiff had remained therein only as a tenant. Both the Courts on appraisal of evidence on record have arrived at a finding of fact that the consideration amount as reflected in the document is adequate. This finding as held in the case of P. L. Bapuswamy, supra, binds this Court. ( 9 ) IN my opinion, language of the document does not admit of any ambiguity. Facts and circumstances as appearing from the evidence led in the case clearly shows that the transaction in question was entered into between the parties not in order to establish the relationship of debtor and creditor but was entered only with the sole purpose of liquidating the existing loan. For the reasons stated above, in my opinion, the Courts below have not committed any error of law in coming to the conclusion that the document Ex. For the reasons stated above, in my opinion, the Courts below have not committed any error of law in coming to the conclusion that the document Ex. D-2 is in fact a document of conveyance or sale with a condition to repurchase. In that view of the matter, I have no option but to dismiss this appeal and confirm the judgment and decree of the Courts below. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .