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

1916 Supreme(Mad) 233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.
Nara Reddiar
Versus
Doraiswami Reddi
Decided On : 14 April, 1916

The recital of consideration in a document can be proved to be falsely made, and the actual nature of the consideration can be proved by oral evidence, as supported by judicial precedents and Section 92 of the Evidence Act.

Headnote:

Consideration - Promissory Note - Recital of consideration in document can be proved to be falsely made - Oral evidence to prove actual nature of consideration - Judicial precedents and Evidence Act

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff sought to prove that the consideration mentioned in the promissory note was different from what was recited in the document.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that it is permissible to prove that the recital of consideration in a document is falsely made and that the actual nature of the consideration can be proved by oral evidence.

Issues: Interpretation of the recital of consideration in a document and admissibility of oral evidence to prove the actual nature of consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on judicial precedents and Section 92 of the Evidence Act to support the admissibility of oral evidence to prove the actual nature of consideration despite the recital in the document.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the allowance of evidence regarding consideration, finding that there was good consideration for the note.

JUDGMENT

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

1. The argument in this Revision Petition is that as the promissory note recites that cash was received for the execution of the note, it is not open to the plaintiff to prove that the consideration was different from what was recited in the document. Reliance was placed for this purpose upon a decision of this Court reported in Adityam Aiyar v. Ramakrishna Aiyar (1913) I.L.R. 38 M. 511. s. c. 25 M.L.J. 602. All that was decided in that case was that by oral evidence, it is not open to the parties to add to the amount of the consideration mentioned in a document. The question as to whether the actual nature of the consideration that passed between the parties can be proved by oral evidence was not considered in the case. It is settled law that the recital in a document as regards consideration having been paid in a particular way can be proved to have been falsely made. It is enough to mention in this connection the decision of the Judicial Committee reported in Lal Achal Ram v. Rajn Kasim Husain Khan (1905) L.R. 32 I.A. 113. There it was pointed out by Lord Macnaghten that an untrue recital in a deed should not preclude evidence being given of the real consideration. In a later case Hanifunnissa v. Faizunnissa (1911) I.L.R. 33 A. 340 s. c. 21 M.L.J. 1126 the Judicial Committee held that the nature of the consideration can be proved by oral evidence. This is also the view taken also by Mr. Justice Banerjee in Chunni Bibi v. Basanti Bibi (1914) I.L.R. 36 A. 537. Speaking for myself, I have no hesitation in holding that it is open to the parties to an instrument to show that the special consideration mentioned in the document is not really what passed between them. That seems to follow from Clause 1 of Section 92 of the Evidence Act. I think the District Munsif was right in this case in allowing evidence to be gone into regarding consideration ; he has found that there was good consideration for the note. This petition must be dismissed with costs.

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 Back to top