Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.47 seconds)Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
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
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:
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.
Section 19 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
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
RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 14/23
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:
Section 111 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1