Procedural amendment and registered sale deed principles: substitution was allowed, but oral contradiction and fresh tenancy plea failed.

An appeal filed against a respondent who had already died was treated as amenable to procedural amendment, and the appellate court could allow substitution of the legal representatives under its powers rather than treating the appeal as a nullity. The court also held that a party to a registered sale deed could not contradict its terms by oral evidence, and a fresh tenancy plea could not be raised for the first time in second appeal. The alleged mortgage theory also failed because the document did not record any reconveyance condition. On merits, the decree based on the registered instrument was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal memorandum could be amended under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to bring the legal representatives of a respondent on record when the respondent had died before the appeal was filed. (ii) Whether the appellant could rely on oral evidence or a new tenancy plea to defeat the decree founded on a registered sale deed.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal memorandum could be amended under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to bring the legal representatives of a respondent on record when the respondent had died before the appeal was filed.

Analysis: The question was treated as one of procedural power under the Code. The Court preferred the view that an appeal presented against a deceased respondent is not necessarily a nullity and that, in a proper case, the cause title may be amended so that the legal representatives are brought on record. The Court declined to treat the decree of the lower appellate court as a nullity or to order a remand, noting that the appellant had not informed the court of the respondent's death and could not take advantage of that default.

Conclusion: Amendment of the appeal memorandum was permissible and the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff were ordered to be brought on record.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could rely on oral evidence or a new tenancy plea to defeat the decree founded on a registered sale deed.

Analysis: The defendant's challenge to the consideration under the registered document was found to be unassailable in second appeal on facts, and the attempt to contradict the terms of the document by oral evidence was barred by the rule excluding such evidence. The alternative contention that the transaction amounted to a mortgage also failed because the condition for reconveyance was not embodied in the document, as required by the law governing transactions of that nature. The separate plea based on tenancy was rejected because it had not been taken in the written statement and could not be raised for the first time in second appeal.

Conclusion: The appellant's substantive defences failed, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff stood.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable only to the limited extent of substituting the deceased respondent's legal representatives, but on merits the appellant failed to establish any ground for interference with the decree.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal is filed against a deceased respondent, the appellate court may permit amendment of the memorandum and substitution of legal representatives under the procedural powers of the Code, and a party to a registered instrument cannot contradict its terms by oral evidence or raise a fresh factual plea for the first time in second appeal.

---