Bai Hira Devi v. Official Assignee of Bombay
Whether the appellants were entitled to lead oral evidence with a view to show the real nature of the impugned transaction. In deciding this question, it would be necessary to consider the true scope and effect of s.91 and s.92 of Evidence Act. As the Court observed the s.91 and s.92 really supplement each other. It is because s.91 by itself would not have excluded evidence of oral agreements which may tend to vary the terms of the document that s.92 has been enacted and if s.92 does not apply in the present case, there is no other section in evidence act which can be said to exclude evidence of the agreement set up by the appellants. The result is that s.92 is wholly inapplicable to the present proceedings and so the appellants are entitled to lead evidence in support of the plea raised by them. Accordingly set aside the decree passed by the High Court and send the appeal back to that Court for disposal on the merits in accordance with law.
Gulzar Khan v. Smt. Vijay Lakshmi
The case is in respect to house No. 183 an agreement for sale for a consideration of Rs. 1,80,000 was executed with plaintiff on 15.11.1979 and part consideration was paid to the defendant vendor Rs. 50,000. The suit was contested by defendant alleging that possession of room was already handed over the plaintiff and this fact was duly mentioned in the agreement for sale. The trial court disbelieves the fact that possession was handed over to the plaintiff. The occasion came before High Court the expression terms in s.91 and s.92 must relate to statements, assertions or representations contained in the written contract which relate to the subject-matter of the contract and to something to be done or not to be done under the contract. The bar imposed by s.92 (1) applies only when a party seeks to rely upon the document embodying the terms of transaction and not when the case of a party is that the transaction recorded in the document was never intended to be acted upon at all between the parties and that document is a sham. For that purpose, oral evidence is admissible to show that the document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement.
In the present case, document itself has not been challenged but attempt was made to contradict a statement of fact, recorded in the document, and, that is how s.92 comes into play as held by Apex Court.
Bhawanbhai Premabhai v. Bai Vahali
The high court is of the opinion that the defendants were precluded by the provisions of s.92 of Evidence Act from giving oral evidence that the deed of sale was in reality intended by the executant to be a deed of gift. The defendants were allowed to lead evidence that the intention was to make a gift; it must be upon the footing that there was no intention to conclude contract, no contract, no sale, and no sale price. It there was a sale, price would be a term of contract evidence would be inadmissible to show that it was different from that mentioned in the deed.