Oral Evidence Admissible For Misdescription of Property in Sale Deed Under Proviso (1) Of Section 92 Evidence Act: Patna HC
|The Patna High Court allowed the party to present oral evidence regarding the incorrect plot number or boundary description in the sale deed while observing that oral evidence is admissible for the misdescription of property in a sale deed under Proviso (1) of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court ruled that the petitioner could introduce evidence to establish the existence of the mistake and could question the defendant on this matter during cross-examination.
The Court was hearing a civil misc. petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order that rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for review and quashing of the order where the petitioner was debarred from cross-examining the witness Prabhas Yadav, the respondent on the point of contents of document.
The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha observed, “it could be safely concluded that when there is an allegation about misdescription of khesra number in the sale deed, oral evidence as to its contents is admissible. Further, if there is any misdescription of the property or the khesra number has been wrongly mentioned, in my view, the same would come under the purview of Proviso (1) of Section 92 of the Act. However, the mistake sought to be proved by oral evidence under this proviso, must be one which could sustain a claim for rectification or cancellation of the instrument.”
Advocate Ajit Kumar Singh appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Suman Kumar Mishra appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The petitioner Radhe Yadav filed a title suit seeking a declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land, recovery of possession if dispossessed during the suit, and a permanent injunction against the defendant. The respondent Prabhas Yadav as the defendant, filed a written statement after being served notice. During the defendant's evidence recording the Court barred the petitioner’s counsel from cross-examining the defendant on the document's contents, specifically the boundary mentioned in the sale deed, citing Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner’s subsequent review petition was rejected. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Court perused Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act and observed, “it clear that these two sections are supplementing each other. Section 91 applies to all documents, whether they purport to dispose of rights or not, whereas Section 92 applies to documents which can be described as disposing of right.”
“Section 91 applies to documents which could be bilateral or unilateral, but the application of Section 92 is confined only to bilateral documents. The provisions of the aforesaid two sections are based on the “best evidence rule” that when a transaction has been reduced to writing, it becomes the exclusive memorial thereof, and no external evidence is admissible either to prove independently the transaction or to contradict vary, add to or subtract from, the terms of the documents, though the content of the document may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence.”, the Court added further.
The Court said that the law always requires that only the best evidence be laid and hence to admit inferior evidence when the law requires superior would be to nullify the law.
The Court further noted, “Proviso (1) of Section 92 of the Act allows any fact to be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law. The mistake contemplated under the Proviso must be genuine and accidental mistakes like misdescription of property.”
The Court mentioned the decision in Chimanram Motilal Vs. Divnchand Govidram, reported in AIR 1932 Bom 151, where it was held that to determine the existence of a mistake in a written document oral evidence is admissible when the circumstances are appropriate.
Accordingly, the Court held that such oral evidence is covered under Proviso (1) of Section 92 of the Act relating to mistake of fact and would not run counter to the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Act.
Finally, the Court set aside the orders and allowed the Civil Misc. Petition.
Cause Title: Radhe Yadav v. Prabhas Yadav