Mathai vs Krishnaswami Iyer

Govinda Menon, J.—The defendant in O. S. 3/57 on the file of the District Court, Kottayam is the revision petitioner. That suit was instituted for money reserved in a sale deed executed by one Rayankam Iyer in favour of the defendant. In the sale deed an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was reserved to be paid to this Iyer with 6% interest and a suit has been brought by the legal representatives of the deceased Iyer for this amount. The contention of the petitioner in the suit is that there was a subsequent agreement between the deceased Rayankam Iyer and himself by which this amount of Rs. 30,000/- was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. On this contention an issue was framed whether the defendant can prove by means of oral evidence the agreement set up in the written statement. This issue was tried as a preliminary issue and the learned Judge held that the agreement set up by the defendant cannot be proved by oral evidence. Section 92 of the Evidence Act says that when the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter, required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from its terms. It is therefore not open to a party to a document to prove by oral evidence a variation in the terms of the document or as to the amount of consideration shown in the document. The oral agreement would then amount to a modification of the original contract and is inadmissible u/s 92. Reference may in this connection be made to G. P. Mallappa v Malum Nagu Chetty (I.L.R. 42 Madras 41 (FB)) and (Lai) (Lal) Behari Lal Vs. Allahabad Bank, Ltd. and Another, . The finding of the learned Judge that the agreement set up cannot be proved by oral evidence is therefore correct and the revision petition is dismissed with costs.