https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305591 A party to a registered sale deed cannot, by oral evidence, recast an absolute conveyance as a loan transaction or claim the deed was only security, because Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act bar contradiction of the written terms absent a recognised proviso. On that basis, the plaintiffs' admitted title supported a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The defendant's counter-claim, founded only on the same legally barred oral understanding and lacking any independent basis for cancellation, fresh conveyance, or return of title documents, disclosed no real cause of action and was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Dec 2022 09:06:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305591 A party to a registered sale deed cannot, by oral evidence, recast an absolute conveyance as a loan transaction or claim the deed was only security, because Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act bar contradiction of the written terms absent a recognised proviso. On that basis, the plaintiffs' admitted title supported a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The defendant's counter-claim, founded only on the same legally barred oral understanding and lacking any independent basis for cancellation, fresh conveyance, or return of title documents, disclosed no real cause of action and was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305591