SURESH C.V. Vs. TOBIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IF payment of price for sale is disputed, can such fact be proved by mere production and marking of a registered sale deed? Is it necessary to adduce oral evidence to prove such fact? Is there any bar under Section 91 or Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('Evidence Act', for short) to adduce oral evidence to prove payment of price for sale or existence of sale of property?

(2.) CAN a fact stated or narrated in a document be proved by mere production and marking of the document? Is it necessary to adduce oral evidence to prove such fact? What is meant by "contents of documents" for the purpose of Sections 59, 61 and 62 of Evidence Act? Is there any difference between "contents of documents" and "facts" stated in the document? These are some of the substantial questions of law to be considered in this second appeal.

(3.) THE defendant filed written statement and admitted execution of Ext. A-1, but, according to him, Ext. A-1 is not a sale deed. No sale consideration was paid for the alleged sale. Ext. A-1 is only a gift deed, which was later revoked as per Ext. A-3-cancellation deed, after issuing sufficient notice to first plaintiff. There is no attesting witnesses to Ext. A-1. It was executed at the request of his sister (P.W.I). Even if Ext. A-1 is construed as "gift deed", it is invalid since it contravenes Sections 123, 59 and 3 of Transfer of Property Act ('the T.P.Act' for short) and Section 16 of the Contract Act. The defendant is the absolute owner of the property and he is in possession of the property. He is paying basic tax for the property.