N. K. MODY, J. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24/12/1997 passed by I ADJ, Shivpuri in civil suit No. 27-A/1991 whereby the suit filed by the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed, the present appeal is filed. ( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 25/11/1991 alleging that the respondents are the owners of the suit property. It was alleged that Zuman Khan predecessor-in-title of the respondents who has died on 23/11/1985 has executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant on 29/08/1970 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/ -. On the same day an agreement to re-sell the suit property was executed by the appellant in favour of zuman Khan wherein it was mentioned that the appellant will execute the sale deed in favour of Zuman Khan upon payment of Rs. 2,000/- along with interest @ 2% per month. It was further alleged that late Zuman Khan paid interest from time to time and also paid the mortgage money on 13/02/1982 along with balance amount of interest. Further case of the respondents was that the original sale-deed which was executed by Zuman Khan in favour of the appellant was returned by the appellant on payment of principal amount with interest. Further case of the respondents are that thereafter appellant tried to get his name mutated and vide resolution dated 21/02/1989 it was resolved by Municipal Council, shivpuri to get the name of appellant mutated in the record of Municipal Council against which the appeal was filed by one Khatun begum W/o Zuman Khan before the Collector, shivpuri which was allowed and vide order dated 13/06/1991, order of mutation was set aside. It was prayed that it be declared that zuman Khan is owner of the suit property and the sale deed is null and void. ( 3 ) APPELLANT submitted the written statement wherein it was not disputed that the appellant has purchased the suit property from zuman Khan vide registered sale deed but it was denied that by the said transaction the suit property was mortgaged by late Zuman Khan with the appellant. It was admitted that an agreement to re-sale was executed on 30/08/1970 whereby it was agreed that sale deed will be executed upon payment of sale consideration along with interest. It was admitted that an agreement to re-sale was executed on 30/08/1970 whereby it was agreed that sale deed will be executed upon payment of sale consideration along with interest. It was also not disputed that interest was paid by Zuman Khan from time to time. It was denied that on 13/02/1982 a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was paid by zuman Khan to appellant. It was admitted that original sale deed which was registered by the appellant in favour of Zuman Khan was returned to him. An explanation was given that the sale deed was returned to late Zuman Khan as he was in need of that document for producing the same in some case. It was alleged that thereafter the document was never returned. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned court below framed the issues, recorded the evidence and decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that Section 58 (c) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with mortgage by conditional sale which reads as under :-58. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) Mortgage by conditional sale.-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 become void, or on condition that on such payment being made the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller, the transaction is called 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. ] ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that since the sale deed Ex. P/4 is dated 29/06/1970 does not contain any condition of re-purchase, therefore, sale deed Ex. P/4 is out and out sale and is not a mortgage. Learned counsel further submits that the document ex. P/9 does not bear the signature of the appellant. It is submitted that it is a forged document prepared by the respondents. P/4 is dated 29/06/1970 does not contain any condition of re-purchase, therefore, sale deed Ex. P/4 is out and out sale and is not a mortgage. Learned counsel further submits that the document ex. P/9 does not bear the signature of the appellant. It is submitted that it is a forged document prepared by the respondents. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the case of Narayan v. Amu wherein this Court has observed the "sale deed and deed of reconveyance executed on same day, transaction is not mortgaged" Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Ramjan khan v. Baba Raghunath Dass wherein this court has held that "in the absence of any word in a sale deed which suggests or purports to suggest that the transfer ostensibly sold the property on condition that in default of payment of the consideration (loan) on a certain date the sale shall become absolute, or on condition that on such payment being made the sale shall become void, or that on such payment being made the Buyer shall re-transfer the property to the seller the document in question cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a document of mortgage by conditional sale, repurchase agreement also in the instant case, was not executed contemporaneously but subsequently. The words in the sale deed, whereby the vendor agreed that in case the property transferred goes out of the hands of the vendee due to any defect in the title, the vendee shall be entitled to recover the whole amount of consideration with interest at the rate of 1% per annum, further indicated that it was an out and out sale. " ( 6 ) AT last reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba chavan wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "there exists a distinction between mortgage by conditional sale and a sale with a condition of repurchase. In a mortgage, the debt subsists and a right to redeem remains with the debtor, but a sale with a condition of repurchase is not a lending and borrowing arrangement. There does not exist any debt and no right to redeem is reserved thereby. An agreement to sell confers merely a personal right which can be enforced strictly according to the terms of the deed and at the time agreed upon. There does not exist any debt and no right to redeem is reserved thereby. An agreement to sell confers merely a personal right which can be enforced strictly according to the terms of the deed and at the time agreed upon. "( 7 ) SHRI A. H. Afsar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that after repayment of loan amount original sale deed was returned to the respondents. It was submitted that the sale deed was executed by Zuman Khan on 29/08/1970 for Rs. 2,000/- and agreement to re-sale the suit property was also for rs. 2,000/ -. It was alleged that against rs. 2,000/- a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was returned by the respondent along with interest. In the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly declared that the respondents are owners and in occupation of the suit property. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a decision in the case of Deokoo Bai v. Keshari chand wherein this Court has observed that"property purchased and sold for same price, the presumption can be drawn that the transaction was of loan and the document executed was by way of collateral of security for loan". Further reliance was placed on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Indira Kaur v. Sheo Lal Kapoor wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "sale with agreement to reconveyance for the same amount, long period fixed for reconveyance, no mutation by purchaser, transaction is of mortgage". Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on a decision of hon'ble Apex Court Umabai (Supra) and submits that wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held "that the true nature of transaction must be determined having regard to the intention of the parties as well as the circumstances attributing thereto as also the wordings used in the document in question". ( 8 ) FROM perusal of the record, it is evident that the sale deed was executed in favour of appellant on 29/08/1970. The suit was filed on 25/11/1991 i. e. after 21 years of the transaction. Appellant did not get the suit property mutated in his name in spite of lapse of 21 years. The original sale-deed was filed by the respondents. The suit was filed on 25/11/1991 i. e. after 21 years of the transaction. Appellant did not get the suit property mutated in his name in spite of lapse of 21 years. The original sale-deed was filed by the respondents. It was specifically alleged that loan was paid along with interest on 13/02/1982 and after that the receipt was also filed by appellant giving the explanation satisfactorily that in what circumstances the original sale deed was reached into the hands of the respondents. ( 9 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in decreeing the suit filed by the respondents. In view of this, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .