1. In this case we are unable to adopt the view of the Courts below as to the construction of exhibit A. We are of opinion that it operates as a mortgage by conditional sale. The question is not governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, but we are entitled to look to the provisions of that enactment with a view to determining the legal effect of the instrument in question. Section 58 specifies three instances of mortgages by conditional sale. One of these is 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. It seems to us that the instrument in question falls within the words of this definition. The document is described as 'Meddatu Krayan.' These words are defined in Wilson's Glossary as 'land mortgaged with option to the lender to consider it as his property if the mortgage is not redeemed within a stipulated period.' The use of the words is, of course, not conclusive, but we think that, taken in conjunction with the other provisions in the instrument, their effect is to render the document a mortgage and not, as the Courts below have held, a sale on a condition.
2. It was contended that the instrument is not a mortgage, since it does not transfer an interest in immovable property. It is true, it does not transfer such an interest in terms, but the question is not is there such a transfer in express terms' - but does the instrument, taken as a whole, operate as such a transfer?'
3. Tb case of Butchiraju v. Ramalinga Murty 14 Mad. L.J. 337 may be distinguished on the ground that the document there in question is not described as 'Meddatu Krayan.'
4. We are of opinion that the deed is a mortgage. The decrees of the lower Courts will be set abide and there will be a decree for redemption on payment of Rs. 544. Four months will be allowed for redemption. The appellant is entitled to his costs throughout.