MAHANT RAMDHAN PURI vs BANKEY BIHARI SARAN & OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that the transaction in question was a mortgage and not a lease, emphasizing that the intention of the parties is paramount in determining the nature of the agreement, as per Section 76 and Section 77 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court ruled that the mortgagee was not liable to render accounts due to a contractual agreement allowing receipts from the mortgaged property to be taken in lieu of interest. The stipulation for payment to the mortgagor was deemed a personal obligation of the mortgagee, affirming the mortgage's nature despite the mention of interest rates.