Parties can not be allowed to produce parole evidence for altering or substituting the terms of the written statement.

The defendant, who lost his case before the lower Appellate Court is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondent herein has filed the suit O.S. No.26 of 1986 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli for recovery of amount.

2. The case of the respondent herein is that she sold the property under Ex.A1 on 31-08-1984 for a total consideration of Rs.35,990/-, but the sale consideration is mentioned only as Rs.9,900/- in the deed as the appellant herein has agreed to pay the balance sum of Rs.26,000/- separately, later. Since the appellant failed to pay the said sum, as promised, the respondent has filed the above suit.

3. Before the trial court, the respondent herein has marked Exs. A1 to A9 and examined herself as PW1 and one Devasundaram, Advocate as PW2. The case of the appellant herein is that the sale consideration is only Rs.9,900/-, the claim of the respondent is false besides that barred under Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act. The appellant herein has marked Exs. B1 to B4 and examined himself as PW1. The trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment of the trial court, the respondent herein has preferred appeal A.S. No. 180 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli. The lower appellate Court reversed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court, hence this second appeal.

4. This second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law namely

1. Whether the lower Appellate Court failed to note that the claim of the respondent is barred under provisions of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act?

2. Whether the lower Appellate Court failed to note that the suit is barred under Section 23 of the Contract Act?

3. Whether the lower Appellate Court has erred in relying upon Ex.A8 to reverse the well considered judgment of the trial court?

4. Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in awarding cost of courts below?

5. Mr. Peppin Fernando, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted as follows:-

The First Appellate Court erred in granting the Decree relying upon Ex.A8 but it did not make any reference to the appellant or the alleged transaction; that the evidence of PW2 cannot be relied upon for any purpose; that the sale consideration in Ex.A1 was Rs.9,900/- and at the time of sale there was a dispute on that property; that the suit claim is barred under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act; that the First Appellate Court, having rejected Exs. A2 and A3 ought to have rejected the entire claim of the respondents; that Exs. B1 to B4 clearly prove the consideration shown in Ex.A1 is the correct market value and prayed for setting aside the Decree and Judgment passed by the First Appellate Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the following decisions in support of his case:-

i) Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. Narasaiah – 2001 – 1 Law Weekly 881 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 51 (A) of Land Acquisition Act, Section 64 and 65 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 57 of the Registration Act pertaining to Land Acquisition cases held that "in the case of Section 51 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act also, the position cannot be different, as it is open to the Court to act on the documents regarding transactions recorded in such documents. However, this will not prevent any party, who supports or oppose the said document or the transactions recorded therein to adduce other evidence to substantiate their stand regarding such transactions. But, it is not possible to hold that even after the introduction of Section 51 A the position would remain the same as before."

In this case, the Honourable Supreme Court held that Section 51 A enables the Court to treat what is recorded in the document as evidence which is like any other evidence. But, it is for the Court to weigh all the pros and cons whether such transactions can be relied upon for understanding