KARIBASAMMA Vs. PATEL SANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's revision petition against the judgment and decree of the Addl. Civil Judge, Shimoga, in S.C. Suit No. 441/1974.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit in the Court below to recover a sum of Rs. 1500 as principal and a sum of Rs. 224 as interest on the basis of a document executed by the defendant on general stamp paper of the value of Rs. 2. One of the recitals in the document which was marked as Ex-P-1 in the Court below was that the defendant had received the sum of Rs. 1500 on certain conditions. In the recital it was further stated that he had received the amount of consideration mentioned in the document. Strangely, the document was drawn by the defendant himself. In spite of a legal notice, he failed to pay the amount and therefore the suit was filed. In the written statement the defendant, while admitting receipt of Rs. 550 in respect of the transaction as per Ex-P-1, nevertheless stated that the whole transaction was spurious and that the plaintiff came to his house at Bhadravathi and put a proposition of allowing her two sons to cultivate two acres of wet land belonging to the defendant first proviso -- Pronote - Evidence for a period of three years in consideration of which she would pay Rs. 1500 to the defendant and he accepted the same and not being conversent with the drafting of legal document, he used the stamp paper of the value of Rs. 5 bought by one Devegowda for his purposes and wrote Ex P-1. He further took the stand in the Court below explaining the reasons as to why he had not replied the legal notice which was caused to be issued by the plaintiff. The Court below on the pleadings formulated the following points for determination.

(3.) In support of that contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has relied upon two decisions, namely, one of the High Court of Madras and the other of the High Court of Patna. In the case reported in A.I.E. 1965 Madras 147 and in the case reported in A.I.R. 1958 Patna 61, the learned Judges of the respective High Courts have, in fact, held on a literal construction of Sec. 92 proviso (1) that while it is permissible for a party to a document to lead evidence, as to failure of consideration, want of consideration and the kind of consideration it will not be open for such party to lead evidence in regard to the quantum of consideration mentioned in the document. However, these decisions will not be of much assistance to the petitioner because a Division Bench of our High Court in the case of K. S.Rajansa v. S.M.Dhondusa, (1970) 1 Mys.L.J. 489. has positively ruled that even the quantum of consideration can be proved by oral evidence under the 1st proviso to Sec. 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Narayana Pai, J., as he then was held as follows: