Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Mottayappan Alias Selambia Goundan vs Palani Goundan And Anr. on 5 March, 1913
In support of our view we may refer to the judgment of Scott, J., in Gowasji Ruttonji Limboowalla v. Burjorji Rustomji Limboowalla (1888) I.L.R., 12 Bom., 335, and for a general view of the scope of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act to a recent judgment of this Court in Selamba Goundan v. Palani Goundan (1913) M.W.N., 650.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Probat Chandra Gangapadhya vs Chirag Ali on 2 March, 1906
7. The only Indian case to which we need refer is that of Probat Chandra Gangapadhya v. Chirag Ali (1906) I.L.R., 33 Calc., 607 at p. 611, which is relied on by the appellant's vakil in consequence of the single passage in the judgment-" The consideration of the contract is different from the terms of the contract itself." That was a case of a kabuliyat executed by a tenant agreeing to pay an enhanced rent; and it was simply held that the consideration for enhancement was not a term of the kabuliyat. It is a very different case from that of a sale-deed and the sale price; and we see no reason to suppose that the learned Judges would have taken the same view in the latter.
Cowasji Ruttonji Limboowalla vs Burjorji Rustomji Limboowalla And Ors. on 10 January, 1888
In support of our view we may refer to the judgment of Scott, J., in Gowasji Ruttonji Limboowalla v. Burjorji Rustomji Limboowalla (1888) I.L.R., 12 Bom., 335, and for a general view of the scope of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act to a recent judgment of this Court in Selamba Goundan v. Palani Goundan (1913) M.W.N., 650.
Vasudeva Bhatlu vs Narasamma on 2 February, 1882
4. The first case relied on in the appellant's favour is that of Vasudeva v. Narasamma (1882) I.L.R., 5 Mad., 6. The plaintiff in that case sued on a sale-deed reciting cash consideration:The defendants pleaded that no cash was paid, but that the document was originally executed in consideration of the plaintiff's acting as guardian to his minor son (defendant's grandson). This boy died, the defendant subsequently registered the document on the plaintiff's promise to marry another daughter of the defendant-which promise he apparently failed to keep. The defendant's plea in effect was "want or failure of consideration," though the learned Judges speak of it as a plea "that the consideration was of a kind other than that stated in the deed of sale." The first proviso to the section specifically enacts that "want or failure of consideration" may be proved. It is doubtful, therefore, whether their Lordships intended to lay down any rule of law other than that contained in the proviso, although the appellant's vakil is no doubt entitled to lay stress on the passage in which they say:
Ram Bakhsh vs Durjan And Ors. on 5 February, 1887
Two other cases quoted [Ram Bakhsh v. Durjan (1887) I.L.R., 9 All., 392 and Indarjit v. Lal Chand (1896) I.L.R., 18 All., 168], have no bearing whatever, inasmuch as they deal simply with arrangements as to mode of payment, without any attempt to vary the terms of the contract as to the consideration itself.
1