NAVALBAI FULCHAND Vs. SIVUBAI GENU KORPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this suit is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to show that a transaction is not an out-and-out sale.

(2.) The document evidencing the transaction is in form an absolute sale, and the case therefore falls within Section 92 of the Evidence Act, whereby it is provided, subject to certain provisos, that "when the terras of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from its terms."

(3.) This section has been the subject of judicial determination in Balkishen Das v. Legge (1899) I.L.R. 22 All. 149.