Real sale consideration may be proved despite a lower recital, and a cheque towards the true price is supported by consideration.

Section 92 of the Evidence Act does not bar a third party from proving the true nature of a sale transaction, and Section 99 permits evidence to contradict or vary the terms of the document. The court noted that understatement of sale consideration for stamp purposes does not by itself invalidate the sale or prevent proof of the real consideration; the Stamp Act consequences are confined to revenue penalties. On the evidence, the vendor and vendee supported the claim that the actual consideration was higher than the recital, and the cheque was treated as part-payment of that real price, so it was supported by consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff could adduce evidence to prove that the real consideration for the sale deed was higher than the amount recited in the document, and whether the cheque issued towards the balance of that consideration was supported by consideration.

Analysis: The rule excluding oral evidence under Section 92 of the Evidence Act applies as between parties to the instrument or their representatives in interest. It does not bar a third party from proving the true nature of the transaction, and Section 99 recognises that a stranger to the document may lead evidence to contradict or vary its terms. The evidence of the vendor and the vendee supported the case that the actual sale consideration was larger than the figure recited in the deed, and the understatement of consideration for stamp purposes did not render the sale void or illegal. The Stamp Act provisions imposed a revenue penalty for non-disclosure of the true consideration, but they did not prevent proof of the real consideration or invalidate the transaction. On the evidence, the cheque was issued as part-payment of the real sale consideration and not as a mere security.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to prove the real consideration notwithstanding the recital in the sale deed, and the cheque was supported by consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: The exclusion of oral evidence under Section 92 of the Evidence Act does not apply in a dispute between a party to the document and a third party, and understatement of consideration in a sale deed for stamp purposes does not by itself invalidate the transaction or negate consideration for a cheque issued towards the real sale price.

---