1925 (3) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of oral evidence to contradict the written terms of a contract.
2. Determination of unpaid balance and entitlement to a decree.
3. Claim for interest on the unpaid balance.
4. Limitation and validity of the plaint.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Oral Evidence:
The primary legal issue was whether the defendants could introduce oral evidence to contradict the written terms of the deed of assignment, specifically regarding the consideration amount. The plaintiff argued that the recital in the deed of assignment of the payment of Rs. 89,000 by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff is a recital of fact, and the law allows parties to show by oral evidence that a recital of fact in a deed is not true. The defendants admitted the recital was not true but contended that the real consideration agreed was Rs. 2,60,000, not Rs. 2,89,000. The court held that under Section 92 of the Evidence Act, the defendants are not entitled to contradict the written terms by parol evidence. The court referred to several precedents, including Adityam Aiyar v. Ramakrishna Aiyar, which supported the plaintiff's contention that the consideration amount in a deed of assignment is a crucial term of the contract and cannot be contradicted by oral evidence.

2. Determination of Unpaid Balance:
The plaintiff claimed that only Rs. 60,000 out of the Rs. 89,000 was paid, leaving a balance of Rs. 29,000 unpaid. The defendants admitted that only Rs. 60,000 was paid but argued that the balance was never intended to be paid. The court found that the document, Ex. A, contained the terms of the contract, including the agreed consideration of Rs. 2,89,000, and that the defendants admitted the non-payment of Rs. 29,000. The court concluded that the defendants are liable to pay the plaintiff the unpaid balance of Rs. 29,000.

3. Claim for Interest on Unpaid Balance:
The plaintiff sought interest on the unpaid balance of Rs. 29,000. The court considered various grounds for the claim, including the Interest Act, the Transfer of Property Act, and general law as damages. The court noted that the deed of assignment provided a penalty for default in payment, which limited the assignee's entitlement to profits and property proportionate to the amount paid. The court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to interest on the unpaid amount as the penalty provided in the deed was adequate compensation. The court also found no evidence that the plaintiff suffered damages warranting additional compensation.

4. Limitation and Validity of the Plaint:
The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation because the plaint was signed by an agent without obtaining prior leave from the Deputy Registrar. The court held that the failure to obtain leave was a mere irregularity and did not invalidate the plaint. The court ruled that the leave granted subsequently by a learned Judge of the Court cured any irregularity, and the suit was validly instituted within the limitation period.

Conclusion:
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 29,000 without any interest. The defendants were ordered to pay the amount from the assets of the deceased 1st defendant and the properties of the joint family in their hands. The plaintiff was awarded costs, while the defendants were granted costs on the disallowed interest claim. Execution of the decree was stayed for fifteen days, with provisions for the plaintiff to draw the amount upon furnishing security if the defendants paid the decreed amount into court.