VISHNU RAMCHANDRA JOSHI Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SATHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued on a promissory-note dated the 21 May 1919 for Rs. 600, and for Rs. 3 as interest and for costs and further interest. The defendant admitted having passed the promissory-note, but contended that it was passed in consideration of a part of the price of certain lands sold by the plaintiff to one Narayan Vithal on whose behalf the defendant had taken a havala for Rs. 600, and that the defendant was ready to pay the same if the plaintiff discharged the burden resting on the property sold. An issue was raised whether the defendant was entitled to insist that before the amount of the promissory-note could be recovered the plaintiff should discharge the incumbrance on the property sold by him to a third party.

(2.) The trial Judge held that the defendant's contention was obviously unsustainable, and passed a decree for the amount claimed.

(3.) In first appeal this decision was confirmed, and the question V before us is whether the defendant having passed a promissory note on demand in favour of the plaintiff, can be allowed to lead evidence to prove a contemporaneous oral agreement whereby the plaintiff is said to have agreed that he would not present the note, although it was payable on demand, until he had discharged certain incumbrances on the property he had sold to the defendant's brother-in-law. Unless such an agreement can be brought within the terms of proviso 3 to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is quite clear that no evidence can be led to prove it. At first sight it would seem beyond dispute that any oral agreement that a promissory-note payable on demand should only be payable at a future date, or on the happening of a future event, would be inconsistent with the terms of the written contract, and, therefore, inadmissible under Section 92.