9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Declaratory suit for title to a house property, validity of sale deed, applicability of res judicata, interpretation of section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Validity of Sale Deed: The respondent alleged that a sale deed and rent note executed with the appellant were nominal and never intended to be acted upon, claiming ownership of the property. The trial court and High Court found the documents to be sham, setting aside lower court's decision that it was a mortgage. The High Court held that the decrees from Small Causes Court did not operate as res judicata, allowing the respondent to establish the true nature of the transaction. Res Judicata: The appellant argued that the decrees from Small Causes Court, treating the respondent as a tenant, should preclude reevaluation of the sale transaction. The High Court held that the Small Causes Court lacked competency to decide title disputes, thus not meeting the conditions of res judicata under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Interpretation of Section 92 of the Evidence Act: The appellant contended that section 92 barred the respondent from denying the sale deed's validity and introducing parole evidence. The Court clarified that section 92 applies only when parties rely on the document's terms, allowing oral evidence if the document was never intended to be acted upon. The respondent was permitted to present parole evidence, leading to a finding in her favor. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision that the sale deed was nominal, the Small Causes Court decrees did not establish res judicata, and section 92 of the Evidence Act did not bar the respondent from presenting parole evidence.
|
