Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Attacking the reasoning of the learned Single Judge learned counsel for the appellant pleads that where fraud is alleged in the execution of a document, Section 91 of the Evidence Act would have no place.

12. To appreciate the contention urged we note that the pleading of fraud, as laid, would be that the actual promise for the execution of the receipt was that the payment would be made through RTGS without the respondent having any intention of performing the promise. Though the appellant has not expressly so pleaded, but the same is inherent in the plea of fraud taken because Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines fraud as under:-

"17. 'Fraud' defined - „Fraud‟ means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:-
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, or that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;