DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 20-08-1990 in A. S. No. 91 of 1990 (A. S. No. 4 of 1984 on the file of Sub- court, Madanapalle) on the file of additional District Judge at Madanapalle setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29-9-1983 in O. S. No. 179 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Thamballapalle. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. He died during the pendency of this appeal. Appellants 2 and 3 are brought on record as legal representatives of the sole appellant. ( 2 ) NECESSARY facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: a house bearing D. No. 3/74 in puligantivandlapalle village is the subject-matter of the suit. The appellant claims that Poola subbarayudu purchased vacant site under sale deed Ex. A-4 dated 26-9-1927, later constructed two houses in the said vacant site, sold one house to P. W. 3 Chinna Reddeppa and on 11-1-1978 under Ex. A-l Poola subbarayudu and his son venkataramana sold the suit property to him and there was a reconveyance agreement under which Poola subbarayudu can repay the sale consideration amount within three years and thereafter the plaintiff has to execute a document reconveying the suit property to Poola Subbarayudu. It is also pleaded that subsequent to ex. A-l sale deed, in February, 1978, defendant has unauthorisedly entered into possession of the suit property. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title and also for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant. The defendant resisted the suit. He claimed that Venkataramana, who is the son of subbarayudu, is the absolute owner of the suit property and the said venkataramana under Ex. B-l sale deed dated 24-2-1978 sold the suit property to him and inducted him into possession of the said property. Defendant denied that plaintiff was inducted into possession of the suit property. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court settled appropriate issues for trial. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the trial court. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the trial court found that the plaintiff purchased the property under the sale deed Ex. A-l and he is the absolute owner of the said property. Accordingly the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the trial court. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the trial court found that the plaintiff purchased the property under the sale deed Ex. A-l and he is the absolute owner of the said property. Accordingly the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by that judgment, the defendant preferred an appeal in A. S. No. 91 of 1990 before the Additional District Judge, madanapalle. The Appellate Court construed Ex. A-l as a mortgage by a conditional sale and held that the only remedy of the plaintiff is to file a suit for recovery of mortgage amount and plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit for declaration of his title and for possession. Accordingly the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court. It dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment of the lower Appellate court, the plaintiff preferred the present appeal. ( 3 ) AT the time of admission of this appeal, the learned Admission Judge treated the following two points formulated in the memorandum of appeal as substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in the present appeal. (1) Whether the lower Appellate Court has not erred in law in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial court on the sole ground that Ex. A-l is a mortgage and not a sale deed in the absence of even a denial in the written statement that it is not a sale deed (which amounts to admission under order VIII Rule 5 C. P. C.)? (2) Whether the lower court has not erred in placing consideration on ex. A-l as a mortgage without any denial or assertion by the plaintiff in the plaint that it is a sale deed with a condition to recovery, if the entire consideration is paid within three years? ( 4 ) POINTS 1 and 2: The learned advocate for the appellants contended that recitals in Ex. A-l document clearly indicate that it is an outright sale with an agreement to reconvey and not a mortgage by conditional sale and therefore the finding given by the lower Appellate court is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on a judgment of this court in Mohd. Ahmedullah khan v. Triveni Bai. A-l document clearly indicate that it is an outright sale with an agreement to reconvey and not a mortgage by conditional sale and therefore the finding given by the lower Appellate court is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on a judgment of this court in Mohd. Ahmedullah khan v. Triveni Bai. In para 6 this court laid down the tests which are to be taken into consideration to hold whether a particular document is a mortgage by conditional sale or an outright sale with a condition to reconvey on payment of consideration. It is necessary to extract the entire para 6. It reads as follows:"6. The tests that could be taken into consideration in order to hold whether a particular document is a mortgage by conditional sale or an outright sale with a condition to reconvey on payment of consideration are: (I) The existence of the relationship of a creditor and debtor between the parties as on the date of the transaction and the continuance of vendor in possession of the subject-matter indicates a mortgage, (II) If there is a stipulation for payment of interest on repayment, it indicates a mortgage, (III) The price below the true value indicates a mortgage; a fair-market value is a strong evidence for the transaction to be sale, and (IV) The fact that time is the essence of the contract to repurchase is not decisive. The plaintiff claims that the suit property is the self acquired property of Poola subbarayudu. Ex. A-l document was executed not only by Poola Subbarayudu but also by one of his sons by name Poola venkataramana. Poola Subbarayudu was examined as P. W. 2 by the plaintiff. It is in the evidence of P. W. 2 that he is having another son also. As per the unambiguous recitals in Ex. A-l, the consideration for ex. A-l document is Rs. 1,000-00. Both the vendors mentioned in Ex. A-l that the said amount of Rs. 1,000-00 is the debt incurred by them from the plaintiff on the date of ex. A-l document, the said recital clearly establishes the existence of relationship of a creditor and debtor between the parties as on the date of Ex. A-l document. In the plaint also plaintiff mentioned that on 11-1-1978 (the date of Ex. A-l document) poola Subbarayudu and Venkataramana borrowed Rs. 1,000-00 from the plaintiff. A-l document, the said recital clearly establishes the existence of relationship of a creditor and debtor between the parties as on the date of Ex. A-l document. In the plaint also plaintiff mentioned that on 11-1-1978 (the date of Ex. A-l document) poola Subbarayudu and Venkataramana borrowed Rs. 1,000-00 from the plaintiff. Even during course of trial, as P. W. 1, plaintiff deposed that Poola Subbarayudu borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000-00 from him and executed Ex. A-l. P. W. 2 also deposed that he borrowed Rs. 1,000-00 from the plaintiff and executed Ex. A-l in favour of the plaintiff. From these facts it is very clear that the relationship between the parties as on the date of Ex. A-l document is the relationship of a creditor and a debtor. The intention of the parties regarding the nature of the transaction is to be gathered from the recitals in the document itself. The unambiguous recitals in the document ex. A-l clearly indicate that the executants of ex. A-l incurred the debt and as a security for discharge of the said debt, executed the document Ex. A-l. Those recitals are supported by the evidence let in by the plaintiff during the course of the trial. As noticed above, plaintiff as well as one of the executants as P. W. 2 categorically deposed that P. W. 2 borrowed Rs. 1,000-00 as a loan from the plaintiff and executed Ex. A-l document. Though plaintiff claimed that he was put in possession of the suit property under Ex. A-l document, it is not elicited from P. W. 2, who is one of the executants of ex. A-l document, that he inducted the plaintiff into possession of Ex. A-l property under Ex. A-l document. Though the plaintiff claimed that he was inducted into possession on the date of Ex. A-l, he did not adduce any evidence in support of his plea. The conduct of plaintiff in seeking relief of possession within a couple of months from ex. A-l date shows that he was not inducted into possession. This is a crucial circumstance to be kept in mind. This circumstance indicates that the vendors continued to be in possession of the subject- matter of the document Ex. A-l even after execution of Ex. A-l document. It, therefore, satisfies one of the important tests laid down in the above decision. This is a crucial circumstance to be kept in mind. This circumstance indicates that the vendors continued to be in possession of the subject- matter of the document Ex. A-l even after execution of Ex. A-l document. It, therefore, satisfies one of the important tests laid down in the above decision. ( 5 ) COMING to the amount of consideration for Ex. A-l document, it is to be stated that admittedly a sum of rs. 1,000-00 alone was paid by the plaintiff to both the executants of Ex. A-l document. At the end of the document, it is clearly stated that the market value of the property is Rs. 2,000-00 as on the date of Ex. A-l document. It also shows that the consideration paid under Ex. A-l is below the market value of the property concerned. This circumstance also indicates that the document Ex. A-l is a mortgage by conditional sale and not an outright sale with an agreement to reconvey the property. Therefore, even applying the important tests mentioned in the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellants, it is clear that the transaction covered by ex. A-l document is a mortgage by conditional sale. Absolutely there are no reasons whatsoever to set aside the said finding given by the lower Appellate Court. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants further contended that Poola Subbarayudu is the exclusive owner of the property and therefore his son Venkataramana cannot covery any title to the defendant under ex. B-l sale deed. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, it is not strictly necessary to give a finding whether venkataramana alone could convey absolute title to the defendant regarding the plaint schedule property under Ex. B-l sale deed. One important circumstance is to be mentioned. Plaintiff obtained Ex. A-l document not only from Poola subbarayudu but also from one of his sons venkataramana. The sale deed Ex. A-4 in favour of Poola Subbarayudu is during the year 1927. Just because the said sale deed stands in the name of Poola Subbarayudu alone, without any further plea or proof, the court cannot jump to the conclusion that it is his self acquired property. He purchased only vacant site. Whether there was joint family nucleus available in his hands on the date of Ex. A-4 transaction is not pleaded or established in the present case. He purchased only vacant site. Whether there was joint family nucleus available in his hands on the date of Ex. A-4 transaction is not pleaded or established in the present case. Even if a person acquires a property, the law does not disentitle him to treat it as a joint family property. The conduct of Poola subbarayudu in allowing his son to join in execution of Ex. A-l document and also in the absence of any recital in Ex. A-l document indicating mat it is the exclusive property of Poola Subbarayudu, it is not possible to hold that Venkataramana cannot convey any title to the defendant under ex. B-l sale deed. Further, that aspect need not be considered at length for the disposal of the present appeal. When the plaintiff is. only a mortgagee, he will not acquire any title over the suit property. Therefore, he cannot be declared as absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and a decree for possession cannot be granted in his favour. Recitals in Ex. A-l, the plaint as well as the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 clearly reveal that ex. A-l is a mortgage by conditional sale. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment passed by the lower Appellate court. There are no merits in the appeal. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.