21. 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, it is quite vivid that the sale deed in question purports to be an absolute sale, as it does not contain any stipulation for treating the sale as the mortgage. The agreement of re-conveyance has not been recited in the sale deed (Ex. P/1) or in a separate document, as such, in the absence of embodiment of such a clause in Ex. P/1, the transaction cannot be regarded as a mortgage or a loan transaction as no oral evidence is admissible to contradict Ex. P/1 which is an outright sale transferring title by defendant No. 4 Hagroo's father Ramu Chouhan in favour of the original plaintiff Tilak Prasad. Therefore, the transaction in question (Ex.P/1), 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 or loan transaction and it is held to be an outright sale. The first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that the sale deed dated 14/07/1970 (Ex. P/1) is a loan transaction, as such, the said finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is contrary to facts and law available on record.
