Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Tyagaraja Mudaliyar vs Vedathanni on 6 December, 1935
In that event, the law declares that the nature and intent of the transaction must be gathered from the terms of the document itself and no evidence of any oral agreement or statement can be admitted as between the parties to such document for the purpose of contradicting or modifying its terms. The sub-section is not attracted when the case of a party is that the transaction recorded in the document was never intended to be acted upon at all between the parties and that the document is a sham. Such a question arises when the party asserts that there was a different transaction altogether and what is recorded in the document was intended to be of no consequence whatever. For that purpose oral evidence is admissible to show that the document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but that some other agreement altogether, not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties (Tyagaraja Mudaliyar v. Vedathanni919). The trial court was right in permitting the respondent to lead parol evidence in support of her plea that the sale deed dated January 7, 1953 was a sham document and never intended to be acted upon. It is not disputed that if the parol evidence is admissible, the finding of the court below in favour of the respondent must be accepted. The second contention on behalf of the appellant must also fail.
P.S. Ranakrishna Reddy vs M.K. Bhagyalakshmi And Anr on 20 February, 2007
(ii) (2007) 10 SCC 231 [ P.S.Ranakrishna Reddy vs. M.K.Bhagyalakshmi and another]. An excerpt from it would run thus:
Gangabai W/O Rambilas Gilda vs Chhabubai W/O Pukharajji Gandhi on 6 November, 1981
(i) (1982) 1 SCC 4, at page 10 -Gangabai v. Chhabubai, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
P. D'Souza vs Shondrilo Naidu on 28 July, 2004
15. The decision of this Court in Dadarao whereupon reliance has been placed by Mr.Chandrashekhar is wholly misplaced. The terms of the agreement therein was absolutely different. We need not dilate on the said decision in view of the fact that in a subsequent decision of this Court in P.D'Souza v. Shondrilo Naidu it has been held to have been rendered per incuriam, stating : (SCC pp.657-58, paras 34-36).
1