In line with the law laid down, it is clear that the contract mandated continuation of the business in the name of ‘Karandikar Brothers’ by paying royalties of Rs. 90 per month. Once the parties have accepted the recitals and the contract, the respondent could not have adduced contrary extrinsic parole evidence, unless he portrayed ambiguity in the language. It may not be out of context to note that the extension of the contract was on same conditions.
{Para 16}
17. On consideration of the matter, the High Court erred in
appreciating the ambit of Section 95, which led to consideration of evidence which only indicates breach rather than ambiguity in the language of contract. The evidence also points that the license was created for continuation of existing business, rather than
license/lease of shop premises. If the meaning provided by the High Court is accepted, then it would amount to Courts substituting the bargain by the parties. The counsel for respondent has emphasized much on the receipt of payment, which mentions the term ‘rent received’. However, in line with the clear unambiguous language of the contract, such evidence cannot be considered in the eyes of law.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10827 of 2010
Mangala Waman Karandikar Vs Prakash Damodar Ranade
Author: N.V. RAMANA, CJI
Dated: MAY 07, 2021
