DEVIPRASAD RAMDAYAL Vs. MANOHARA SUNDARPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point for consideration in this case is whether evidence of any oral agreement can be admitted for the purpose of varying the terms of a contract which has been reduced to writing. Deviprasad Petitioner filed a suit against Manohara and Motiram in the Small Causes Court, Gwalior on the basis of a bond for the recovery of Rs. 210/ -. The Defendants pleaded discharge of the debt by putting in one year's service at the rate of Rs. 10/ - a month. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff on the ground of discharges. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the bond being in writing its terms cannot be varied by an oral agreement. The bond, no doubt, states that Rs. 24/ - will be paid at the rate of Rs. 2/ - a month within a year, and Rs. 100/ - will also be paid within a year. But the Defendants pleaded that subsequently there was an oral agreement by which it was agreed between the parties that Rs. 120/ - borrowed under the bond would be paid, by Defendant 1 serving, with the Plaintiff for a year as gardener on Rs. 10/ - a month. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that oral agreement cannot be proved to vary the terms of a written agreement. Section 92 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: