SHIVLAL BHURABHAI VORA Vs. BAI SANKLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the plaintiff, the sister-in-law of the defendants, had certain disputes in connection with her husband's property which culminated in a family arrangement in the shape of an agreement by the defendants to pass an annuity bond in favour of the plaintiff for maintenance. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover Rs. 87-8-0 on the annuity bond dated October 13, 1924. The defendants contended that they were entitled to prove a contemporaneous oral agreement by which the plaintiff agreed not to receive maintenance if she did not behave well and assure the defendants that she continued chaste.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge, relying on the decision in the case of Bhup Singh v. Lachman Kunwar (1904) I.L.R. 26 All. 321, held that such an oral agreement was not admissible in evidence.

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the applicants that the agreement falls within proviso (3) of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, The proviso runs as follows:-- The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved.