JHULAI Vs. BADAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff was parjotdar of 1 bigha 15 biswas of land, for which he used to pay Rs. 40 per year as ground rent to the defendant. On the 16 of May, 1917, the plaintiff relinquished. 17 biswansis of land and agreed to pay Rs. 21 per year for the remaining land. A formal deed of relinquishment was executed by him, in which it was stated that the plaintiff did so because the portion of land relinquished was not fit for cultivation.

(2.) The allegation of the plaintiff was that at the time he executed the said deed of relinquishment there had been a separate oral agreement between him and the defendant by virtue of which the latter agreed to pay Rs. 200 to the former, out of which Rs. 32 were to be credited towards the arrears of rent due by the former to the latter. Subsequently the defendant filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 32 due to him on account of the said arrears of rent and obtained a decree against the plaintiff. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 200 with interest on the strength of the oral agreement aforesaid. The court below found in favour, of the plaintiff and decreed the claim.

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the defendant that the court below had erred in admitting oral evidence to vary the terms of the deed of relinquishment. The deed of relinquishment is a voluntary document executed by one party. It is silent as to whether any payment was to have been made to the plaintiff as alleged. It recites that the portion of the land relinquished was not fit for cultivation and was relinquished in consequence, and that the plaintiff shall pay Rs. 21 per year for the remaining land. According to the court below that relinquishment was agreed to by the plaintiff on the strength of a separate oral agreement given by the defendant that he would pay Rs. 200 to the plaintiff in the manner above specified. The question of the existence or otherwise of consideration can always be inquired into irrespective of what is entered in the deed. The deed does not say that the relinquishment was to be made without any payment. It is silent, and the plaintiff was entitled to prove this separate oral agreement under proviso (2), Section 92, of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.