Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

... ... ..."
(Emphasis supplied by me) CS no.59274/16 Natascha Chadha & Ors Vs. M/s Yograrj Infrastructure Ltd. page no. 19/35
32. With respect to the Proviso 4 to Section 92 Indian Evidence Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in S. Saktivel v. M. Venugopal Pillai, (2000) 7 SCC 104, held as under:
"5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the view taken by the High Court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff was erroneous inasmuch as the settlees under Ext. A-1 got the suit property and by the subsequent oral arrangement, they agreed to work out their rights without varying or substituting the terms of Ext. A-1 and, therefore, the High Court was not right in not considering the oral arrangement as pleaded by the defendant- appellant. It is not disputed that disposition under Ext. A-1 in the present case is by way of grant and under the said disposition all the sons of Muthuswamy Pillai acquired rights. It is also not disputed that the settlement deed is a registered document and by virtue of alleged subsequent oral arrangement, the other sons of Muthuswamy Pillai were divested of the rights which they acquired under the settlement deed. Under such circumstances the question that arises for consideration is as to whether any parol evidence can be let in to substantiate subsequent oral arrangement rescinding or modifying the terms of the document which, under law, is required to be in writing or is a registered document, namely, Ext. A-
(i) The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any earlier contract, grant or disposition of property can be proved.
(ii) However, this is not permissible where the contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing.
(iii) No parol evidence can be let in to substantiate any subsequent oral arrangement which has the effect of CS no.59274/16 Natascha Chadha & Ors Vs. M/s Yograrj Infrastructure Ltd. page no. 21/35 rescinding a contract or disposition of property which is registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents.

6. In sum and substance what proviso (4) to Section 92 provides is that where a contract or disposition, not required by law to be in writing, has been arrived at orally then subsequent oral agreement modifying or rescinding the said contract or disposition can be substantiated by parol evidence and such evidence is admissible. Thus if a party has entered into a contract which is not required to be reduced in writing but such a contract has been reduced in writing, or it is oral, in such situations it is always open to the parties to the contract to modify its terms and even substitute by a new oral contract and it can be substantiated by parol evidence. In such kind of cases the oral evidence can be let in to prove that the earlier contract or agreement has been modified or substituted by a new oral agreement. Where under law a contract or disposition is required to be in writing and the same has been reduced to writing, its terms cannot be modified or altered or substituted by oral contract or disposition. No parol evidence will be admissible to substantiate such an oral contract or disposition. A document for its validity or effectiveness is required by law to be in writing and, therefore, no modification or alteration or substitution of such written document is permissible by parol evidence and it is only by another written document the terms of earlier written document can be altered, rescinded or substituted. There is another reason why the defendant-appellant cannot be permitted to let in parol evidence to substantiate the subsequent oral arrangement. The reason being that the settlement deed is a registered document. The second part of proviso (4) to Section 92 does not permit leading of parol evidence for proving a subsequent oral agreement modifying or rescinding CS no.59274/16 Natascha Chadha & Ors Vs. M/s Yograrj Infrastructure Ltd. page no. 22/35 the registered instrument. The terms of registered document can be altered, rescinded or varied only by subsequent registered document and not otherwise. If the oral arrangement as pleaded by the appellant, is allowed to be substantiated by parol evidence, it would mean rewriting of Ext. A-1 and, therefore, no parol evidence is permissible.

7. In view of the aforesaid legal position on interpretation of proviso (4) to Section 92 we have to examine as to whether settlement deed Ext. A-1 was required to be in writing under the law or not. It is not disputed that by settlement deed Ext. A-1, which is a disposition, Muthuswamy Pillai passed on right to property to all his sons, who acquired right in the property. Where there is such conferment of title to the property, law requires it to be in writing for its efficacy and effectiveness. A document becomes effective by reason of the fact that it is in writing. Once under law a document is required to be in writing, parties to such a document cannot be permitted to let in parol evidence to substantiate any subsequent arrangement which has effect of modifying earlier written document. If such parol evidence is permitted it would divest the rights of other parties to the written document. We are, therefore, of the view that the subsequent oral arrangement set up by the defendant-appellant cannot be proved by the parol evidence. Such an evidence is not admissible in evidence."