Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.55 seconds)
Sharda Devi vs Bimlesh on 19 January, 2026 cites

Tyagaraja Mudaliyar vs Vedathanni on 6 December, 1935

In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India placed reliance on the judgment of Tyagaraja Mudaliyar vs Vedathanni (1936) 38 BOMLR 373. The said judgment further elaborates upon the admissibility of parol evidence admissible u/s 92 of Indian Evidence Act. In the said judgment passed by the Ld. Privy Council, was called upon to decide the question as to whether under the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence was inadmissible to establish that it CS No. 54/19 Sharda Devi Vs. Bimlesh Page 19 of 24 had been agreed that the provisions for the plaintiff's maintenance were not to be acted on, as the document was only intended to create evidence of the undivided status of the family. It was a case where one of the parties was trying to give oral evidence to show that the written agreement between the parties was no agreement in reality and therefore, there was no contract between them. While dealing with the said issue, the Ld. Privy Council noted section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act and laid as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 72 - Full Document

Mottayappan Alias Selambia Goundan vs Palani Goundan And Anr. on 5 March, 1913

may be proved "; and in Mottayappan v. Palani Goundan (1913) I.L.R. 38 Mad. 226, Benson and Sundara Ayyar JJ. have expressed the opinion that oral evidence to show that a document was never intended to operate according to its terms, 'but was brought into existence, as in the present case, solely for the purpose of creating evidence about some other matter is CS No. 54/19 Sharda Devi Vs. Bimlesh Page 22 of 24 admissible under proviso 1 to Section 92, " any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document". This may well be so, but in their Lordships' opinion, even if there were no provisos to either section, the result in the present case would be the same, because there is nothing in either section to exclude oral evidence that there was no agreement between the parties and therefore no contract."
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Gangabai W/O Rambilas Gilda vs Chhabubai W/O Pukharajji Gandhi on 6 November, 1981

In Gangabai vs Chhabubai AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 20, 1982 (1) SCC 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with a case wherein the appellant was relying upon a sale deed; while the respondent was contending that the said document was never an actual sale and in fact, she had taken a loan from appellant with an understanding that she should execute a nominal document of sale with the rent note. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was presented with the argument that u/s 92(1) of Indian Evidence Act, the respondent therein was restrained from contending that there was no sale and no oral evidence to the contrary should be admitted in evidence. While answering the said contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 147 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1