Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act provide a complete bar for any party to set up a case that the consideration for a sale is more than what is mentioned in the conveyance or in the contract.

Defendants in a suit for realisation of balance sale consideration are the appellants. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case areas follows: According to the plaintiff, he entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants of 22-6-1981 for selling the plaint schedule property, 3 cents of land and an unfinished building therein, for a total consideration of Rs.16,000/-. It was provided in the agreement that

Rs.4000/- was paid as advance on that day. But, as a matter of fact, only Rs. 100Q/- was paid to the plaintiff and the balance Rs.3000/- was reserved with the defendants for paying off a debt due from the plaintiff to the Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Original period of the agreement was up to 22-9-1981 and according to the plaintiff it was extended till 18-12-1981. Plaintiff alleged that by undue influence and fraud the defendants got executed a sale deed Ext. A2 on 21-12-1981 in which the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.10,000/-. According to the sale deed an amount of Rs.7000/- was paid before the Sub Registrar and the balance Rs.3000/- was reserved with the defendants to pay off the debt due from the plaintiff to the Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants had agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.5000/- as soon as the document was registered, but contrary to the agreement they paid only Rs. 2000/-. The suit is filed for recovery of the balance amount of Rs.3000/- with interest and costs.

2. The defendants denied that the consideration was Rs.16,000/-. Though they admitted that the original agreement was for Rs.16,000/-, later as the plaintiff removed certain valuable materials from the building, the consideration was reduced to Rs. 10000-, out of which they paid Rs.7,000/- before the Sub Registrar and the balance reserved towards discharge of a liability of the plaintiff towards Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. They have paid the amount and according to them no amount is due to the plaintiff. They also contended that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by the provisions contained in S.91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act) and that the plaintiff is not entitled to contend that the actual consideration for the sale was more than the amount shown in Ext. A2 sale deed.

3. Both the courts below accepted the case of the plaintiff that the actual consideration was Rs.16,000/-and accordingly granted a decree to the plaintiff for realisation of the amount as claimed in the plaint. Though the lower appellate court considered the question as to whether there is a bar under Ss.91 and 92 of the Act and noted the decision cited by appellants' counsel, it has not entered a definite finding, but on the evidence in the case agreed with the trial court. Defendants have come up in appeal.

4. Before this Court, counsel for the respondent submitted that he has no instructions in the matter and accordingly I have had not the advantage of hearing the arguments on behalf of the respondent's counsel.

5. The question of law on which the appeal was admitted is as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to raise a contention regarding the difference in consideration in Ext. A2 sale deed, in view of the provisions contained in Ss.91 and 92 of the Act. Though the plaintiff had alleged in the plaint that the sale deed Ext.A2 was executed by showing a less consideration due to the undue influence and coercion of the defendants, there is no evidence to that effect and both the courts below have not found that Ext.A2 is Satiated. So, we have to proceed on the basis that Ext.A1 sale deed was executed by the plaintiff by his own free volition. In Ext.A1 the consideration is shown as Rs.10,000/- an amount of Rs.7,000/- was paid before the Sub Registrar and Rs.3,000/- was reserved with the defendants to discharge the liability of the plaintiff towards