18. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the proviso to Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and in light of the principles rendered by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Chunchun Jha (supra) followed in Srinivasaiah (supra), examining Ex.P-1 & P-2, it is quite vivid that the documents in question purport to be an absolute sale, as they do not contain any stipulation for treating the sale as mortgage. The agreement of re-conveyance is not embodied in a separate document, it is said to be agreed orally and it is not recorded in the document as such, in the absence of embodiment of such a clause in Ex.P-1 & P-2, the transaction cannot be regarded as mortgage, as no oral evidence is admissible to contradict Ex.P-1 & P-2, which is an outright sale transferring title by the defendants in favour of plaintiffs. Therefore, the transaction in question, in the absence of embodiment as contained in the proviso to Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, cannot be regarded as a mortgage and it is held to be an outright sale. Both the Courts below are absolutely justified in holding the sale deeds dated 03.02.1964 (Ex.P-1 & P-2), as such.
