In so far as the first submission of the learned counsel for the
plaintiff that the defendant no.1 could not have been permitted to lead
evidence to contradict the contents of the agreement to sale dated 17th
October 1995 in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 is concerned, in my view, the defendant no.1 had not led evidence
to contradict the contents of the said agreement for sale dated 17th
October 1995. The case of the defendants before the trial Court was that
the said transaction entered into between the parties was not to be acted
upon as the same was to be kept as a security in favour of the plaintiff
and was not to be acted upon as an agreement to sale. The defendant no.1
had disputed the entire transaction and thus could lead evidence in that
regard in view of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The first
appellate Court, in my view, has rightly adverted to the judgments of the
Supreme Court referred to aforesaid and has rightly rejected the
contention raised by the plaintiff. In my view, there is no substance in
this submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.144 OF 2016
along with
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.228 OF 2016
Manohar Pamandas Jani
V
Madhukar Trimbak Waychal
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.
DATE : 25th October 2016
Citation: 2017(1) ALLMR 102
Print Page
plaintiff that the defendant no.1 could not have been permitted to lead
evidence to contradict the contents of the agreement to sale dated 17th
October 1995 in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 is concerned, in my view, the defendant no.1 had not led evidence
to contradict the contents of the said agreement for sale dated 17th
October 1995. The case of the defendants before the trial Court was that
the said transaction entered into between the parties was not to be acted
upon as the same was to be kept as a security in favour of the plaintiff
and was not to be acted upon as an agreement to sale. The defendant no.1
had disputed the entire transaction and thus could lead evidence in that
regard in view of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The first
appellate Court, in my view, has rightly adverted to the judgments of the
Supreme Court referred to aforesaid and has rightly rejected the
contention raised by the plaintiff. In my view, there is no substance in
this submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.144 OF 2016
along with
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.228 OF 2016
Manohar Pamandas Jani
V
Madhukar Trimbak Waychal
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.
DATE : 25th October 2016
Citation: 2017(1) ALLMR 102
