Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
Civil Misc. Jur. No.1076 of 2017
(26.6.2024)
Radhe Yadav ... Petitioner
vs.
Prabhas Yadav ... Respondent
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 91 & 92 – Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document – Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement – Reading these two Sections makes it clear that these two Sections are supplementing each other – Section 91 applies to all documents, whether they purport to dispose of rights or not, whereas 92 applies to documents which can be described as disposing of right – Section 91 applies to documents which could be bilateral or unilateral, but application of Section 92 is confined only to bilateral documents – The provisions of these Sections are based on "best evidence rule" that when a transaction has been reduced to writing, it becomes the exclusive memorial thereof, and no external evidence is admissible either to prove independently the transaction or to contradict vary, add to or substract from, the terms of documents, though the content of the document may be proved either by way of primary or secondary evidence – The law always requires that only the best evidence be laid and hence to admit interior evidence when the law requires superior would be to nullity the law – It could be safely concluded that when there is allegation about misdescription of khesra number in the sale deed, oral evidence as to its contents is admissible – Further, if there is any misdescription of the property or the khesra number has been wrongly mentioned, the same would come under the purview of proviso (1) of Section 92 of the Act – However, the mistake sought to be proved by oral evidence under this proviso, must be one which could sustain a claim for rectification or cancellation of the instrument – Learned Trial Court, in the present case, erred in passing the impugned orders and committed an error of jurisdiction in rejecting the question put to the respondents in cross-examination with regard to boundary of plot numbers and the orders stand set aside – Civil Misc. petition allowed. (Paras 8, 11 & 13)
Sheodhyan Singh Vs. Musammat Sanichara Kuer, AIR 1963 SC 1879; Jahuri Sah Vs. Dwarka Prasad Jhunjhunwala, AIR 1967 SC 109; M. D. Gopalaiah Vs. Smt. Usha Priyadarshini, AIR 2002 KARNATAKA 73 – Referred.
Rikhiram Vs. Ghasiram, AIR 1978 MP 189; Ram Jiwan Rai Vs. Deoki Nandan Rai, AIR 2005 PAT 23; Abdul Hakim Khan Vs. Ram Gopal, AIR 1922 All 42; Chimanram Motilal Vs. Divnchand Govidram, AIR 1932 Bom. 151; Rajaram Vs. Manik, AIR 1952 Nag. 90; Tulsiram Rajaram Brahman Vs. Durgaprasad Ramprasad Brahman, 2001 SCC OnLine MP. 260 – Relied.
Arun Kumar Jha, J.—The present civil misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the learned Munsif-I, Munger in Misc. Case No. 05 of 2016 rejecting the petition dated 21.05.2016 filed by the petitioner for review of the order dated 22.04.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 2011 and also for quashing the order dated 22.04.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was debarred from cross-examining the witness Prabhas Yadav, the respondent herein, on the point of contents of document.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of the present petitioner, as it appears from the record, are that the petitioner has filed Title Suit No. 23 of 2011 for declaration of the title of the plaintiff on the suit land and for confirmation of possession over the said property apart from recovery of possession in case the plaintiff was dispossessed during pendency of the suit and also for permanent injunction against the defendant. After service of notice, the respondent, who is defendant before the learned trial court, appeared and filed his written statement. While the evidence of the defendant was being recorded, the learned Munsif-I, Munger did not permit the learned counsel for the petitioner to cross-examine the defendant/respondent on the point relating to contents of the document specifically on the point of boundary mentioned in the sale deed executed by his vendor in favour of the petitioner. The learned Munsif-I, Munger vide order dated 22.04.2016 debarred the petitioner to cross-examine the witness on the point that evidnece could not be givent to change or alter the contents of the document as the same is not permissible under the provisions of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Against the order dated 22.04.2016, the petitioner filed review petition on 21.05.2016, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 05 of 2016, but the same was rejected by the learned Munsif vide order dated 02.03.2017. The aforesaid orders have been assailed before this Court in the instant civil misc. petition.
3. Further case of the petitioner is that the suit property bearing Khata No. 184, Plot No. 659, measuring an area 2 ¼ katha originally belonged to one Ram Sahay Yadav (Gope). Out of said area of 2 ¼ katha, Ram Sahay Yadav sold 02 decimal land to one Jhagru Gope and accordingly, mutation was done in the name of Jhagru Gope. After death of Jhagru Gope, his wife Dhaniya Devi sold 02 decimal land in favour of the petitioner on 09.11.1949. However, at the time of registry, the deed writer mistakenly mentioned incorrect Plot No. 654 instead of correct plot no. 659 but boundary of Plot No. 659 was correctly mentioned in the sale-deed. The petitioner coming to know about the mistake committed by the deed writer, filed a petition for correction of plot number in the Registry Office on 04.07.1989 and accordingly, plot number was corrected and the name of the petitioner was entered into Jamabandi No. 184/258 existing in name of Jhagru Gope and thus new jamabandi was created in Mutation Case No. 04 of of 2001. The petitioner had also purchased 5 ¼ dhurs land of the said plot no. 659 from Genhari Yadav, son of late Ram Sahay Yadav, by way of registered sale deed dated 25.04.1980. Since wrong plot number was mentioned in earlier sale deed, following the same sale deed, again incorrect plot number was mentioned and same mistake was committed by the deed writer. But despite repeated requests of the petitioner, Genhari Yadav, the father of the respondent, did not agree to file any petition for rectification of the said mistake committed by the deed writer and correction of the plot number. Further case of the petitioner is that in past when the dispute arose over plot number of earlier purchased 02 decimal land of the petitioner, a panchayati was held and Genhari Yadav accepted that the p
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the best evidence principle and the exclusion of oral evidence for proving the contents of documents under Sec. 91 and 92 of the....
A certified copy of a registered sale deed is classified as a public document and admissible as secondary evidence without formal proof under relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.
Admission of execution of registered sale deed, despite denial of contents as loan security, requires court to mark it as exhibit; proof of contents separate; trial court erred in refusal.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
