2015 AIR CC 1477 (BOM) ::2015 (2) ABR 540

Bombay High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Ravi K. Deshpande , J

( A ) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S. 92 , Proviso 1 — Documentary evidence — Exclusion of oral evidence to prove contrary — Registered document — Case of party that transaction of sale recorded in document was never intended to be acted upon between parties — It was loan transaction though it was not so recorded in the document — Matter would be covered by S. 92 Proviso 1 — Oral evidence against contents of registered document, permissible. (Paras914) AIR1982SC2Followed.)

( B ) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S. 92 , Proviso 4 — Documentary evidence — Exclusion of oral evidence to prove contrary — Registered documents — Whether or not registration is compulsory under law — Parol evidence of any subsequent agreement, modifying or rescinding registered instrument is not admissible — Unless the modification, alteration or waiver is by another registered instrument.13 Proviso (4), does not deal with the question of invalidating any document, but it relates to the existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property. Thus, it makes the parol evidence admissible to show that the prior written contract has been waived or replaced by subsequent oral agreement with a rider that, if a matter has been reduced into writing because the law requires it to be in writing for its validity, no oral evidence can be given of any subsequent agreement, rescinding or modifying it. It can only be waived, rescinded, modified or altered by another written agreement of equally solemn character. The rule applies to all registered instruments, whether or not, registration is compulsory under the law. So when writing embodying the contract has been registered, parol evidence of any subsequent agreement, modifying or rescinding the registered instrument is not admissible, unless the modification, alteration or waiver is by another registered instrument. (Paras1....