Basappa Gurubasappa Kittur vs Tayawa Virupaxappa on 31 July, 1929
The case of Gopal v. Morar only decided that "any other law for the time being in force" did not include the Indian Registration Act, Taking the object of Section 10A, namely, the decision as to the real nature of the transaction by admission of the oral evidence which would otherwise be excluded by the ordinary law, whether Section 92 or the like, I am clearly of opinion that the Tayawa legislature intended that Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act should override not merely Section 92 but also, where necessary, Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, Otherwise, the effect in such a case as the present would be that whilst the oral evidence would be admissible notwithstanding Exhibit 4% the registered deed of sale, oral evidence admissible under Section 10 A, Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, would be excluied under Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act; in other words, Section 91 overrides Article 10 A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act and not vice versa, which the legislature could hardly be taken to have intended on the plain language of Section 10A, The view of the lower appellate Court was, therefore, in my opinion, wrong, when it held that oral evidence was excluded by reason of the existence of Exhibit 46. The general result is that although Exhibit 46 is inadmissible, such oral evidence is admissible by reason of Section 10A, which in a suit such as the present will be taken to override Article 91. In this view both the lower Courts are agreed that on the oral evidence the transaction was one of mortgage, and on taking accounts, the lower appellate Court held nothing is due to the respondents-mortgagees.