AI Overview...
-
Misdescription of Property in Sale Deed - Oral evidence is admissible to clarify misdescriptions, such as incorrect Khesra numbers or plot details, under Proviso (1) of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such evidence helps establish the true intent of parties despite discrepancies in documents Radhe Yadav VS Prabhas Yadav - Patna, Radhe Yadav vs Prabhas Yadav - Patna, S. Marimuthu VS G. Kumaraswamy - Madras.
-
Scope of Oral Evidence - Courts recognize the importance of oral evidence in cases involving mutual mistake or genuine misdescription, allowing parties to prove the real intentions behind property descriptions. This evidence can vary or correct written records to reflect actual facts AJABSING VS JHABBULAL - Nagpur, CHINNASAMY vs PALANISAMI(died) - Madras, Tulsiram VS Durgaprasad - Madhya Pradesh.
-
Limitations and Evidence Requirements - Proper proof, such as property titles, descriptions, or admissions, is necessary when asserting misdescription. Courts scrutinize whether the alleged misdescription affects property identity or is merely a clerical error, and whether oral evidence is relevant and admissible under legal provisions General Assurance Society Ltd. VS Salim - Allahabad, BASAWANAPPA VS NANA RAO - Karnataka, Gorrela Varalakshmi VS Gundu Ratnam Ratnavathi - Andhra Pradesh.
-
Impact on Property Rights and Declarations - Misdescription does not necessarily bar claims for property rights or declarations of ownership if oral evidence demonstrates the discrepancy was genuine and mutually understood, especially when courts aim to give effect to the true intention of parties CHINNASAMY vs PALANISAMI(died) - Madras, S. Marimuthu VS G. Kumaraswamy - Madras.
-
Limitations of Oral Evidence - While oral evidence is permitted to rectify or explain misdescriptions, its admissibility depends on the context, the nature of the mistake, and whether it aligns with statutory provisions, such as Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act Radhe Yadav VS Prabhas Yadav - Patna, Radhe Yadav vs Prabhas Yadav - Patna.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Oral evidence plays a crucial role in cases of misdescription of property, particularly for establishing the true intent of the parties and correcting clerical errors in documents. Courts generally accept such evidence under Proviso (1) of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, provided the mistake is genuine and mutual. However, the admissibility and weight of oral evidence depend on the nature of the misdescription, relevance, and whether it affects the property's identity. Proper legal proof is essential to support claims, and courts aim to uphold the parties' true intentions rather than rigidly adhere to potentially flawed written descriptions.
Search Results for "Misdescription of Property Oral Evidence"
2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 518 • India - Patna
ARUN KUMAR JHA
misdescription of Khesra number in sale deed, oral evidence as to its contents is admissible – If there is any misdescription of ... property or Khesra number has been wrongly mentioned, same would come under purview of Proviso (1) of Section 92 of Act – However ... Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 91 and 92 – Exclusion of oral evidence – These two Sections are supplementing ... and interest in respect of the suit property in fa....
1946 0 Supreme(Nagpur) 74 • India - Nagpur
POLLOCK
Finding of the Court: Court analyzed evidence of possession and sale deed, found in favor of defendants, and dismissed ... Sadatullah, 1918 AIR(Cal) 809; ... So long as it is open to the parties to adduce oral evidence on the ground of mutual mistake in regard to misdescription of property, and a Court can give effect to the real intentions of the parties, we do not see why any question of limitation should ... evidence. ... I agree that extrinsic evidence is admiss....
2024 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3293 • India - Patna High Court
Arun Kumar Jha, J
... ... Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that oral evidence is permissible to clarify genuine mistakes in property descriptions ... The court ruled that oral evidence is admissible to clarify misdescriptions in documents under Proviso (1) of Section 92, allowing ... , allowing the petitioner to prove his case regarding misdescription. ... , the mistake in the plot number must be treated as a mere misdescription which does not affect the identity....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65043 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N.MANJULA, J
93, and 95 - The plaintiff sought declaration of 1/3rd share in a well, with evidence related to property titles and descriptions ... The law does not provide for declarations without proper title evidence where misdescription is present. ... (Paras 11, 29) ... ... Issues: Whether the suit for declaration regarding property rights is ... So long as it is open to the parties to adduce oral evidence on the ground of mutual mistake in regard to misdescription....
2001 0 Supreme(MP) 486 • India - Madhya Pradesh
S.P.KHARE
in fact -- oral evidence can be led to show contract is contrary to concurrent intention of parties. 31 IC 671, AIR 1939 Bom. 151 ... evidence and admission in first written statement -- finding not assailable. ... original vendor in letter n also by heirs in written statement -- admission by opposite party is best evidence. ... The oral evidence, in case of mutual mistake, can be led to vary the written contract. The mistakes contemplated in this proviso are genuine and accidental mis....
1996 0 Supreme(Mad) 541 • India - Madras
S.S.SUBRAMANI
The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property. ... Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title over the property? 5. ... Suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs - Plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property - Defendants ... So long as it is open to the parties to adduce oral evidence on the ground of mutual mistake in regard to misdescription of property, and a court can give effect to the real intention of the ....
2003 0 Supreme(Kar) 673 • India - Karnataka
description of the property in the sale deed and its implications under Sec. 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Sec. 8 of the ... of Property in Sale Deed] - [Ex. ... Evidence Act, 1872, and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, Sec. 8. ... ... ( 6 ) THE reading of the provision also clearly indicates that a person is permitted to adduce evidence to show that there is a mistake of fact in describing the identity of the property and that the description is a misdescri....
2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1839 • India - Madras
G.RAJASURIA
The court noted that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.547 of 1993 had failed to produce any evidence to support their allegation. 3. ... The court held that there was no evidence to indicate that Gopal Naicker had colluded with the staff of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board ... The court noted that there was no evidence to indicate that Umapathi had died before executing the sale deeds, and that a stray sentence ... Whether the Courts below have properly and correctly appreciated both oral and documentary ....
1964 0 Supreme(All) 223 • India - Allahabad
V.G.OAK, D.D.SETH
Whether there was a misdescription of the insured premises in the proposal form? 2. ... The court held that there was no misdescription of the insured premises in the proposal form, as the description of the premises ... The trial court decreed the suit, holding that there was no misdescription of the insured premises and that the defendant was liable ... Sri Jagdish Swarup submitted that Hafiz Ahmad's oral evidence on this point was not admissible under S. 92 of the Evidence Act. ... ....
2003 0 Supreme(AP) 142 • India - Andhra Pradesh
P.S.NARAYANA
said to have resulted in any substantial injury, this may not fall under the misdescription of property ... ... measurements had some nexus and in fact had resulted in securing of inadequate price at the court auction and in the absence of such evidence ... clearly described within the specified boundaries with the building and at any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that there is misdescription ... The learned counsel also had submitted that even otherwise it is not misdescription of the ....
Filter by Legal Phrase
