MAHALAKSHMI AMMA Vs. KRISHNA HOLLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that has been urged in this appeal is that the defendant was debarred from raising the plea under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. The document Ex. A which is the basis of the suit, only states that as the defendant's wife was sickly and that the plaintiff had been serving him and looking after his children and had no other means of livelihood, the defendant would continue to give certain quantity of paddy to the plaintiff during her lifetime. It was also mentioned in the document that the defendant was a relation of the plaintiff s.

(2.) It was contended before me that the defendant should not have been permitted to adduce any evidence against the contents of this document. I might say at the outset that there is a great deal of difference between the terms of a contract and the recitals of facts which are mentioned in a document. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act debars a person, who is a party to a contract from adducing any evidence which may "contradict, vary, add to or subtract from its terms", but there is no justification for holding that the recitals of facts mentioned in the document cannot be contradicted by evidence.

(3.) Taking the particular document in question I find for instance a statement of a fact that the plaintiff was a relation of the defendant. The plaintiff herself in the witness-box denied it. Can it be urged with any justification that the defendant would not be able to traverse this recital contained in Ex. A?. There can only be one answer to the question.