Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.31 seconds)Muhammad Siddiq And Ors. vs Muhammad Nuh on 27 January, 1930
Even the statutory covenant for title which is implied in every contract for sale of immovable property must, according to Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Nuh (1930) I.L.R. 52 All. 604, be deemed to be embodied in the deed of sale. So I cannot accept the finding of the learned District Judge that the sale was subject to this maintenance charge as a valid one operating as against the express covenant found in the sale deed.
Section 55 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Gondu Ramasubbu Iyer vs Muthiah Kone And Ors. on 8 October, 1924
In the face of this express covenant, it is difficult to see how evidence can be adduced to show that the purchase was subject to any encumbrance or encumbrances. The decision of Devadoss, J., in Gondu Ramasubbu Iyer v. Muthia Kone was relied on by Mr. Parthasarathi in support of the view that a declaration as to title or the absence of an encumbrance is not one of the terms of the contract for sale and evidence can be adduced to show that the buyer was aware of the defect in title even when there is a definite recital in the sale deed that there is no encumbrance. The decision no doubt supports the view, but with great respect I am unable to agree with it. An express covenant for title or for freedom from encumbrances such as we find in this case cannot be regarded as a mere recital which can be contradicted by oral evidence. Such covenants are terms of the contract itself, and any oral evidence to contradict them falls within the mischief of Section 92 of the Evidence Act.
1