Maung Pu vs Maung Po Thant - 1928 Supreme(Rang) 37

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1928 Supreme(Rang) 37

Maung Pu – Appellant
Versus
Maung Po Thant – Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. The respondents sued in the Sub-divisional Court of Kyauktan the appellants on a promissory note, for Rs. 3,466. Appellants inter alia admitted execution of the note, but pleaded that plaintiffs had agreed to accept the sum of Rs. 3,200 in full settlement of this and a number of other claims and that they also agreed to accept payment by instalments. The trial Judge excluded this evidence under the provisions of Section 92, Evidence Act, and in this respect, he was upheld on appeal by the District Court, Hanthawaddy.

2. It is urged before us that both the Courts erred by reason of Section 63, Contract Act, which gives a party full power to modify or remit any part of the terms of contract entered into between the parties. We do not think that the ground of the lower Court's decision can be maintained. While no oral evidence can be given to contradict or modify the original contract, there is nothing to prevent oral evidence being adduced under prov. 4 of Section 92, in order to prove satisfaction of the claim. But the fact of appellants proving the basis of the judgment appealed from to be an error does not avail them because' the agreement pleaded does not suggest any co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document