SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(Bom) 177

N.H.BHAGWATI, H.K.CHAINANI
Narsingdas Takhatmal – Appellant
Versus
Radhakisan Rambakas – Respondent


Judgment

Bhagwati J,

1. The main argument which appealed to the learned Judge below was that having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, it was not open to the plaintiff under Section 92, Evidence Act to lead any evidence to show shut the sale-deeds which were executed by the plaintiff in favour of Ramnath and Rampratap as above were really mortgages and that therefore he was entitled to redeem the same. The applicability of Section 92, Evidence Act has also been the subject of an elaborate argument addressed by Mr. R.B. Kotwal, who appears for the plaintiff before us. Before we proceed to discuss the applicability of Section 92, Evidence Act, we think that even though it may appear to be quite elementary, we should set out the terms of Section 92 which would fall to be construed by us in this appeal:

"When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement skill be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradic

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top