Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 981
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Smt. Krishna - Appellant
Versus
Saroj Rani - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 3632 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-02-2020
Mr. Tribhvan Dahiya, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the respondent
Admissibility of oral evidence to contradict terms of a registered document under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Headnote:
oral evidence - contradiction of terms of registered document - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 92
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell a plot. The defendant tore the registered agreement and claimed the plaintiff no longer wanted to purchase the property due to registration issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract, and it was the defendant who was at fault. The defendant's claim of the plaintiff no longer wanting to purchase the property was found false.
Issues: Validity of the torn registered agreement, readiness of the plaintiff to perform the contract, and the defendant's claim of the plaintiff no longer wanting to purchase the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 92, to determine the admissibility of oral evidence to contradict the terms of a registered document.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the lower courts.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - An interesting issue needs consideration. The question is whether oral evidence can be considered for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from the terms of a registered document. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is extracted as under:-
"92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.- When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:
Proviso(1) Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law.
Proviso (2) The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document.
Proviso (3) The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved.
Proviso (4) The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents.
Proviso(5) Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved: Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract.
Proviso(6) Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts".
2. On plain reading of proviso (4) to Section 92, it is apparent that if a contract has been registered according to the law in force, the existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of the property shall not be admissible in evidence. The proviso (4) to Section 92 is applicable even if the document is not required to be registered. The phraseology used in proviso (4) to Section 92 deals with two different eventualities. Thus, the evidence of an oral agreement or modifying the terms of written contract, grant or disposition of the property is not admissible where the document has been registered in accordance with the law applicable. The oral agreement modifying the terms of a contract in writing registered with the authorities as per Registration Act, 1918 would stand excluded. It is not necessary that the document should be one which is compulsorily required to be registered as per the law applicable.
3. Now let us examine the case on merits. The defendant/appellant has filed the present regular second appeal against a detailed judgment passed by the learned first Appellate Court. The plaintiff had filed a civil suit seeking a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 19.03.2007. It will be noted here that the execution of the agreement to sell, which is registered, dated 19.03.2007 with respect to a plot measuring 100 square yards on receipt of earnest money amounting to Rs. 3,35,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.3,45,000/- is not disputed. On plain reading of
