The judgment emphasizes the inadmissibility of oral evidence to prove agreements not reflected in a document, in accordance with Section 92 of the Evidence Act.

Prideaux, A J C—The plaintiff sues to recover certain fields sold to him by the defendants by a sale deed dated 27th July 1923. Execution was not denied, but it was pleaded that on the same day it was agreed between the parties that on defendant's repaying the amount advanced with interest to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would execute a reconveyance of the property mentioned in the sale-deed. A chitthi dated 27th July 1923 has been filed by the defendants. It was further contended that the value of the property sold by the sale-deed is more than the price paid for it, and that the sale-deed was executed under undue influence, the defendants being allowed to remain in possession of the property. The plaintiff on his side alleged that possession of the property was delivered to him and that the defendants took the land back afterwards.

2. The case was tried on the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff had agreed to reconvey the property in suit to the defendant as alleged in para. 4 of the latter's written statement.

(a) Whether oral evidence to prove the alleged agreement is admissible?

(b) Did plaintiff execute the chitthi dated 27th July 1923?

(c) What was the market value of the property at the time of the sale in favour of the plaintiff?

2. Whether defendants delivered possession of the property to the plaintiff and the latter was subsequently dispossessed as alleged?

3. Whether the defendants executed the sale-deed under undue influence of the plaintiff.

4. Whether the sale in favour of the plaintiff is invalid and he is not entitled to possession of the property.

3. A separate finding was come to on issues 1 and 1(a). The Judge found that neither the chitthi was admissible nor could oral evidence be given in support of the allegation that there was an agreement to reconvey. The Judge held that the defendants' case does not come under any of the provisos to Section 92, Evidence Act. Though the Judge gave the parties an opportunity to call evidence on the remaining issues no evidence was called. The suit was decreed, and on appeal that decree was confirmed.

4. The chitthi is rather an extraordinary document. It is not in favour of the defendants. It is said to be written by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff himself states that it is a forgery. The translation of it runs:

Salutations to Amirsa son of Jamnsa Fakir Mussalman of Mundi from Gajasa .son of Bhikasa Mahajan Khadata of Mundi. Further : as regards the writing that I have got executed by Bhai Kaluram, Deolal (and) Dashrath, sons of Onkar Mahajan Khadata of Mundi, and got registered, you are the madhyasta (mediator) in the matter. And the land that was put to auction by Kunjilalsa, Motilalsa, Motisa of Mundi and Chunilal, son of Kesosa, was purchased by me. The amount in that connexion was deposited by them; and the dealings between themselves and myself take place, adjuring by Unkarnath. The amount of the bond of Rs. 200 is, however, due to me and I shall recover it duly. I shall return all the papers on the very day on which you will ask for them. You will not be affected in any way by your being a mediator. These papers are all worth having used for packets. I have no oonoern with them : they may leave bread for their children. Mitti Shrawan Badi 2 Sambat 1980, corresponding to 27th July 1923. Signature, Gajasa (self), by the pen of self. The mortgage-dead is dated 27th July 1923 by the pen of self, Gajasa, Mundi.

5. Reliance is placed for the appellants on prov. 2 to Section 92, Evidence Act. which runs: 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.

6. Now, assuming that the defendants' story is a true one and that the real contract between the parties was that on payment of the money advanced, the land was to be reconveyed, it cannot be