1991 (9) TMI 359 - HC - Indian Laws

Sale deed consideration limits upheld in appeal; parties bear own costs.

Leelamma Ambikakumari and Anr. Versus Narayanan Ramakrishnan

The judgment set aside the decrees of the lower courts, allowed the second appeal, and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff was not entitled to plead or ... - Issues Involved:1. Realisation of balance sale consideration.2. Validity of the sale deed under undue influence and fraud.3. Applicability of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.4. Admissibility of oral evidence to contradict the terms of the written agreement.Detailed Analysis:1. Realisation of Balance Sale Consideration:The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants on 22-6-1981 to sell a property for Rs. 16,000, with Rs. 4,000 paid as advance. However, only Rs. 1,000 was paid, and Rs. 3,000 was reserved to pay off a debt to the Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The sale deed executed on 21-12-1981 listed the consideration as Rs. 10,000, with Rs. 7,000 paid before the Sub-Registrar and Rs. 3,000 reserved for the debt. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants agreed to pay the remaining Rs. 5,000 upon registration but paid only Rs. 2,000. The suit was filed to recover the remaining Rs. 3,000 with interest and costs.2. Validity of the Sale Deed Under Undue Influence and Fraud:The plaintiff alleged that the sale deed was executed under undue influence and fraud by the defendants, showing a lesser consideration. However, there was no evidence supporting this claim, and both lower courts did not find the sale deed vitiated. It was concluded that the sale deed was executed by the plaintiff of his own free volition.3. Applicability of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act:The core legal question was whether the plaintiff could contend a difference in consideration in the sale deed (Ext. A2) under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 91 states that when the terms of a contract are reduced to a document, no evidence shall be given except the document itself. Section 92 further prohibits any oral agreement to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of the document. Provisos to Section 92 allow evidence to invalidate a document due to fraud, intimidation, illegality, or failure of consideration, and to prove separate oral agreements on matters the document is silent on. However, since the document specified the consideration as Rs. 10,000, and there was no evidence of fraud or failure of consideration, the plaintiff could not claim a different amount.4. Admissibility of Oral Evidence to Contradict the Terms of the Written Agreement:The judgment referenced several case laws to support the interpretation of Sections 91 and 92. The Allahabad High Court in Md. Taki Khan v. Jang Singh held that oral evidence contradicting the terms of a written document is inadmissible. The Bombay High Court in Bai Hiradevi v. Official Assignee stated that parties cannot prove a different consideration than what is mentioned in the document. The Madras High Court in K.S. Narasimhachari v. Indo Commr. Bank and the Mysore High Court in S. Rajanna v. S.M. Dhondusa reinforced that consideration is a term of the contract, and oral evidence cannot alter it.The judgment concluded that Sections 91 and 92 barred the plaintiff from claiming a consideration different from what was stated in the sale deed. Since the plaintiff's case was solely that the actual consideration was Rs. 16,000 instead of Rs. 10,000, this claim was inadmissible.Conclusion:The judgment set aside the decrees of the lower courts, allowed the second appeal, and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff was not entitled to plead or prove that the consideration for the sale was more than what was mentioned in the sale deed due to the prohibitions in Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs throughout the proceedings.