that it was not a loan and it was an agreement of sale. Perusal of Ex.P-1 which is an agreement of sale scribed as Ikrarnama wherein first party has been shown as Smt. Mahesh Tamboli, the seller and second party has been shown as Santosh Mahobiya, plaintiff/appellant. Reading of the agreement shows that the double storied house admeasuring 322 sq.ft. situated behind Dayasagar Press, Baraipara, Durg, was agreed to be sold for Rs.1,00,000/- and out of that sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.60000/- was paid as earnest money and rest of Rs.40,000/was agreed to be paid by 19.08.2001 and the registry would be executed. The said document is signed by five persons one is Smt. Mahendra Tamboli, respondent as first party, Santosh Mahobiya, appellant /plaintiff as second party and the witnesses are (i) Mahant Goutamanand Bramhachari, (ii) Laxminath Tamboli and (iii) Ramkrishna Tamboli. The finding of the Court below that since the defendant had pleaded that it was a loan, therefore, the burden would be shifted on the plaintiff that it was not a sale agreement appears to be not according to the law as Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act covers such transaction. For sake of brevity, Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act is reproduced as under.
