IMPORTANT POINT
Documentary evidence is binding and prevails over oral evidence in contract disputes, and a suit for specific performance is subject to limitation based on the terms specified in the contract.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The defendant/respondent claimed that it was a money lending transaction and the agreement was never intended to be acted upon.

3. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties to the suit, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that it was a money lending transaction and the suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and held that it was an agreement to sell. However, the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance of contract and the suit was well within limitation.

4. The following substantial questions of law were formulated, as per the order dated 11/9/1995:

(i) The Courts below wrongly inferred that the transaction was not sale transaction and it was loan transaction, contrary to the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, in accordance with the provisions contained in Ss. 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(ii) The Courts below committed error in deciding that the suit filed for specific performance was time barred as the parties did not fix time for performance of contract.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Courts below erred in believing the oral evidence against the documentary evidence, though barred under Ss. 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. The defendant ever not denied the execution of the document purporting it to be an agreement to sell. The terms of the agreement were clear and unambiguous. However, he led the evidence that it was a loan transaction. Except the earnest amount of Rs.5, 000.00, he did not receive the consideration. However, the plaintiff had produced the receipts acknowledging the money from the plaintiff on various dates, thereby, the defendant has received Rs.14, 500.00. In addition thereto, he also led the evidence that another Rs.1500.00 was also paid to him.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both Courts did not consider the acknowledgment of the part payment of the amount, by which, the entire consideration of Rs.32, 000.00 was paid to the plaintiff, but he had avoided to execute the sale deed. Hence, notice dtd. 28/1/1976 was issued and noticed that the defendant denied to perform his part of contract.

7. Sec. 91 of the Indian Evidence Act speaks of the evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to the form of document. Where such matter is required by the law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of the property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions contained therein. The Sec. purports the proof of terms of the contracts, grants and other dispositions of the property that requires to be reduced to the form of document. If any document as such is reduced to writing, no other evidence except such document is admissible. Production of the document is mandatory. If the original is missing, secondary evidence of such document may be produced to prove the terms of the contract.

8. In the present case, the plaintiff has produced the written agreement to sell and he led the evidence. However, whether the evidence contrary to such document is admissible is the question. Sec. 92 of the Indian Evidence Act speaks of the exclusion of evidence of oral agreement. Where the terms of the contract, grant or other disposition of property that required by law to be reduced to the form of document, have been proved no oral agreement or statement is admissible. In simple words, where law requires that the term of contract are to be reduced to writing, no oral evidence shall be admitted, as