Written sale agreements prevail over contradictory oral claims when full payment and possession are not proved.

A registered written agreement recording the sale price and balance payable prevails over inconsistent oral assertions, and oral evidence cannot be used to vary its terms unless an Evidence Act exception applies. A party claiming full payment of sale consideration must prove that payment with reliable material such as receipts or independent evidence; a bare cash assertion unsupported by proof is insufficient. Where the pleaded version materially departs from the written transaction, the written contract remains decisive and possession cannot be compelled on unproven payment allegations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent proved payment of the alleged full sale consideration so as to compel delivery of possession, and whether oral evidence could be received to contradict the terms of the registered written agreement.

Analysis: The transaction was reduced to writing in a registered agreement reciting the sale price and the balance payable. The respondent's case in evidence departed materially from the case pleaded in the complaint, and the alleged cash payment was unsupported by any receipt or independent proof. In the presence of a written contract, oral evidence could not be admitted to vary its terms in the absence of any applicable exception under the Evidence Act.

Conclusion: The respondent failed to prove payment of the alleged cash amount or full consideration, and the written agreement prevailed. The orders of the State Commission and the National Commission were unsustainable, and the District Forum's decision was restored in favour of the appellant.

---