https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276367 The appellate court dismissed the suit for money recovery due to discrepancies in the consideration amount and alleged tampering with documents by the plaintiffs. The court found the plaintiffs' claim of unpaid amount false, holding that the entire consideration had been paid. The reliance on tampered documents and the bar on oral evidence due to written contract terms under Section 91 of the Evidence Act weakened the plaintiffs' case. The time limitation for filing the suit and alleged alterations in key documents further led to the dismissal of the appeal. en-us Mon, 20 Feb 1939 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Nov 2018 12:39:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276367 The appellate court dismissed the suit for money recovery due to discrepancies in the consideration amount and alleged tampering with documents by the plaintiffs. The court found the plaintiffs' claim of unpaid amount false, holding that the entire consideration had been paid. The reliance on tampered documents and the bar on oral evidence due to written contract terms under Section 91 of the Evidence Act weakened the plaintiffs' case. The time limitation for filing the suit and alleged alterations in key documents further led to the dismissal of the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Feb 1939 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276367