TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iff alleged that by undue influence and fraud the defendants got executed a sale deed Ext. A2 on 21-12-1981 in which the sale consideration was fixed at ₹ 10,000/-, According to the sale deed an amount of ₹ 7000/- was paid before the Sub-Registrar and the balance ₹ 3000/- was reserved with the defendants to pay off the debt due from the plaintiff to the Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants had agreed to pay the balance amount of ₹ 5000/- as soon as the document was registered, but contrary to the agreement they paid only ₹ 2000/-. The suit is filed for recovery of the balance amount of ₹ 3000/- with interest and costs. 2. The defendants denied that the consideration was ₹ 16,000/-. Though they admitted that the original agreement was for ₹ 16,000/-, later as the plaintiff removed certain valuable materials from the building, the consideration was reduced to ₹ 10,000/-, out of which they paid ₹ 7,000/- before the Sub-Registrar and the balance reserved towards discharge of a liability of the plaintiff towards the Development Corporation for Sche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled to raise such a contention in view of the prohibition contained in Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. 6. Section 91 of the Act, in so far as it is relevant, provides that when the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, except the document itself. Section 92 of the Act further provides that when the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property have been reduced to the form of a document as provided for in Section 91, no evidence of any oral agreement shall be admitted as between the parties to any such instrument, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms. On a reading of Sections 91 and 92 it is clear that if a disposition of property is to be reduced into writing by any provision of law and if any document is executed, that alone shall be produced as evidence. Section 92 further provides that no party to the document shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration shown in the contract or in the grant. Various High Courts have considered this aspect of the matter and the earliest decision which was brought to my notice was a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, reported in Md. Taki Khan v. Jang Singh AIR 1935 All 529. Considering the scope of Sections 91 and 92 of the Act, Sulaiman C. J. observed as follows (at page 534): I have therefore no hesitation in holding that where under a written document there is some amount still outstanding which under its terms has to be paid by the transferee, then it is not open to the transferee to produce oral evidence to show that there was a separate contemporaneous oral arrangement under which it was agreed that this sum would not be payable, for such a course would be allowing him to contradict the terms of the document and would be contrary to the provisions of Section 92, Evidence Act. In the same decision Bennet, J. held as follows:-- As a result I consider that the following three propositions of law are established, and I understand that my learned brother, Harries J., agrees with them all and that the learned Chief Justice agrees with the first two: (1) The amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was really no consideration. But this is different from a case where a party admits the passing of consideration specified in the document, but attempts to show that the consideration was either less or more than what is specified. This he is not allowed to do. The same principle was enunciated by a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court also, in the decision reported in S. Rajanna v. S.M. Dhondusa AIR 1970 Mys 270. After holding that the consideration is a term of the contract, their Lordships further held as follows (at p. 280 of AIR) :-- The choice of the word 'matter' and the description of it as something which is not inconsistent with the terms leaves no room for doubt, in our opinion, that the proviso cannot be made use of to alter or qualify or add to what may rightly be regarded as a term of the contract or transaction embodied in the document. Hence, if consideration is to be regarded as one of the terms of the transaction, no oral evidence under the second proviso can be permitted of a matter which would be to any extent inconsistent with the said term of the document. If a document actually states or sets out the consideration for the contract or for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid decisions, it is absolutely clear that Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act is a complete bar for any party to set up a case that the consideration for a sale is more than what is mentioned in the conveyance or in the contract. In the present case, the plaintiff has no case that the consideration mentioned in the document was not paid or that there was any failure of consideration or that the consideration agreed to between the parties was of a different kind than what is mentioned in the document. The definite case of the plaintiff is that the real consideration for the sale was ₹ 16,000/- whereas the conveyance shows the consideration to be ₹ 10,000/-. In view of the provisions contained in Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, the plaintiff is not entitled to plead such a case nor is he entitled to adduce evidence in support of the same. In that view of the matter, the decree passed by the courts below is wrong and is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, I set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below, allow the second appeal and dismiss the suit. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their costs throughout. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
