Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3293
PATNA HIGH COURT
Arun Kumar Jha, J
Radhe Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Prabhas Yadav – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.1076 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Suman Kumar Mishra
Oral evidence is admissible to clarify genuine mistakes in registered documents, despite Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act, Sections 91 and 92 - Cross-examination on contents of registered documents - The court examined whether the trial court erred in debarring the petitioner from cross-examining the respondent regarding the correctness of plot numbers in sale deeds. The court ruled that oral evidence is admissible to clarify misdescriptions in documents under Proviso (1) of Section 92, allowing for the correction of genuine mistakes. (Paras 6-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and possession over land, claiming a mistake in the plot number in the sale deed. The trial court barred cross-examination on grounds of the Evidence Act, leading to the present petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in its application of the Evidence Act, allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent on the plot number and boundary issues.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent could be cross-examined on the correctness of plot numbers and boundaries as mentioned in the sale deeds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that oral evidence is permissible to clarify genuine mistakes in property descriptions, allowing the petitioner to prove his case regarding misdescription.
Result: The orders of the trial court were set aside, and the petition was allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner filed a suit for title and possession over land with a claim of misdescription. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. the respondent argued the trial court's decision was correct, citing inadmissibility of cross-examination. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. the court discussed the admissibility of oral evidence regarding misdescription under the evidence act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. the court allowed the petition, setting aside the trial court's orders. (Para 13 , 14) |
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 26-06-2024
The present civil misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the learned Munsif-I, Munger in Misc. Case No. 05 of 2016 rejecting the petition dated 21.05.2016 filed by the petitioner for review of the order dated 22.04.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 2011 and also for quashing the order dated 22.04.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 23 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was debarred from cross-examining the witness Prabhas Yadav, the respondent herein, on the point of contents of document.
02. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of the present petitioner, as it appears from the record, are that the petitioner has filed Title Suit No. 23 of 2011 for declaration of the title of the plaintiff on the suit land and for confirmation of possession over the said property apart from recovery of possession in case the plaintiff was dispossessed during pendency of the suit and also for permanent injunction against the defendant. After service of notice, the respondent, who is defendant before the learned trial court, appeared and filed his written statement. While the evidence of the defendant was being recorded, the learned Munsif-I, Munger did not permit the learned counsel for the petitioner to cross-examine the defendant/respondent on the point relating to contents of the document specifically on the point of boundary mentioned in the sale deed executed by his vendor in favour of the petitioner. The learned Munsif-I, Munger vide order dated 22.04.2016 debarred the petitioner to cross-examine the witness on the point that evidnece could not be givent to change or alter the contents of the document as the same is not permissible under the provisions of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Against the order dated 22.04.2016, the petitioner filed review petition on 21.05.2016, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 05 of 2016, but the same was rejected by the learned Munsif vide order dated 02.03.2017. The aforesaid orders have been assailed before this Court in the instant civil misc. petition.
03. Further case of the petitioner is that the suit property bearing Khata No. 184, Plot No. 659, measuring an area 2 ¼ katha originally belonged to one Ram Sahay Yadav (Gope). Out of said area of 2 ¼ katha, Ram Sahay Yadav sold 02 decimal land to one Jhagru Gope and accordingly, mutation was done in the name of Jhagru Gope. After death of Jhagru Gope, his wife Dhaniya Devi sold 02 decimal land in favour of the petitioner on 09.11.1949. However, at the time of registry, the deed writer mistakenly mentioned incorrect Plot No. 654 instead of correct plot no. 659 but boundary of Plot No. 659 was correctly mentioned in the sale-deed. The petitioner coming to know about the mistake committed by the deed writer, filed a petition for correction of plot number in the Registry Office on 04.07.1989 and accordingly, plot number was corrected and the name of the petitioner was entered into Jamabandi No. 184/258 existing in name of Jhagru Gope and thus new jamabandi was created in Mutation Case No. 04 of of 2001. The petitioner had also purchased 5 ¼ dhurs land of the said plot no. 659 from Genhari Yadav, son of late Ram Sahay Yadav, by way of registered sale deed dated 25.04.1980. Since wrong plot number was mentioned in earlier sale deed, following the same sale deed, again incorrect plot number was me
