Section 92 Evidence Act – Oral Evidence Admissible Only To Show That The Document Is Sham
Case: Placido Francisco Pinto (D) by LRs & Anr vs Jose Francisco Pinto & Anr
Coram: Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Case No: Civil Appeal No.1491 of 2007
Court Observation: …the oral evidence of a written agreement is excluded except when it is sought to be alleged the document as a sham transaction”
“…it was open to the plaintiff to assert that the document was never intended to acted upon and the document is a sham. Such question arises when one party asserts that there has been a different transaction altogether than what is recorded in the document. It is for that purpose oral evidence is admissible.”
“Section 25 of the Contract Act is to the effect that an agreement without consideration is void but if a document is registered on account of natural love and affection between the parties standing in a near relation to each other, then such an agreement is not void.”
“The burden of proof regarding the genuineness of document lies upon the vendee and that in case of a registered document, there is a presumption that it was executed in accordance with law.”
“Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the effect that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies upon for his claim or defence as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are supposed to be proved. Appellant No.1 has relied upon the sale deed which contains the recital of payment of Rs.3,000/- as the sale consideration. The evidence in support of such sale deed was not required to be pleaded in the plaint filed by the appellant.”
” in terms of Order VI Rule 4 of the Code,in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, or undue influence shall state in the pleadings the particulars with dates and items in the pleadings. The extract from the written statement or the plaint does not show that there is any pleading of misrepresentation or fraud”
“…it was open to the plaintiff to assert that the document was never intended to acted upon and the document is a sham. Such question arises when one party asserts that there has been a different transaction altogether than what is recorded in the document. It is for that purpose oral evidence is admissible.”
“The oral evidence of a written agreement is excluded except when it is sought to be alleged the document is a sham transaction.”
“There is no oral evidence which could prove fraud, intimidation, illegality or failure of consideration to permit the respondents to lead oral evidence to dispute the sale deed” “The respondents have not alleged any fraud in their suit or in the written statement in the suit filed by appellant No. 1. The feigned ignorance about the nature of document cannot be said to be an instance of fraud. In the absence of any plea or proof of fraud, respondent No.1 is bound by the written document on which he admitted his signatures and of his wife. “
[doc id=10910]
Previous Posts
Labour Courts Cannot Overturn Management’s Decision On Mere Hypothesis: Supreme Court
Financial Creditor Has To Prove That Application Filed U/s 7 IBC Is Not Barred By Limitation, But Materials Produced By Corporate Debtor Can Be Examined: Supreme Court Download Judgement
Keywords
Section 92 Evidence Act, Oral Evidence, Admissible
