1935 (12) TMI 32 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms entitlement to maintenance arrears, allows oral evidence. Upholds lower court judgments.

Tyagaraja Mudaliyar and Anr. Versus Vedathanni

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the plaintiff's entitlement to arrears of maintenance. It held that oral evidence was admissible to demonstrate ... - Issues Involved:1. Plaintiff's entitlement to arrears of maintenance.2. Admissibility of oral evidence to contradict written agreements under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.3. Validity of the document affirming the undivided status of the family and its impact on the plaintiff's maintenance claim.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Arrears of Maintenance:The plaintiff, the widow of Ramalinga Mudaliyar, claimed arrears of maintenance from January 1, 1914, at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per year. She began living separately from her husband's family and alleged that no provision for her maintenance was made despite repeated promises by Somasundara Mudaliyar, her husband's brother. The ante-adoption deed executed on behalf of the minor 3rd defendant provided for her maintenance, but the plaintiff argued that this provision was insufficient and not acted upon. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to arrears of maintenance as the suit was filed within the permissible time frame of less than 12 years.2. Admissibility of Oral Evidence to Contradict Written Agreements under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act:The main question was whether oral evidence was admissible to establish that the provisions for the plaintiff's maintenance in the document were not to be acted upon, as it was only intended to create evidence of the undivided status of the family. The court referred to Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which generally exclude oral evidence that contradicts written agreements. However, the court noted that exceptions under Proviso (1) to Section 92 allow oral evidence to prove facts that would invalidate a document, such as fraud or undue influence. The court held that oral evidence was admissible to show that there was no agreement and, therefore, no contract, aligning with precedents from the High Courts of Madras, Calcutta, Patna, and Rangoon.3. Validity of the Document Affirming the Undivided Status of the Family and Its Impact on the Plaintiff's Maintenance Claim:The document executed on December 28, 1912, by the plaintiff and Somasundara Mudaliyar affirmed the undivided status of the family and purported to make provision for the plaintiff's maintenance. However, it was understood that this document was not the final contract for the plaintiff's maintenance. The court found that the document was presented to the plaintiff shortly after her husband's death and she was induced to sign it by representations that it would not be acted upon. Both lower courts held that there was no agreement and, therefore, no contract. The court concluded that the document was never intended to operate as an agreement but was created solely for evidentiary purposes.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the plaintiff was entitled to arrears of maintenance. It held that oral evidence was admissible to show that there was no agreement between the parties, thus invalidating the document affirming the undivided status of the family. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the judgment of the lower courts was upheld.