In the case of “Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Ltd.”(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a document,
as is well known, must primarily be construed on the basis of the
terms and conditions contained therein and that it is also trite
that while construing a document the Court shall not supply any
words which the author thereof did not use. It has been further
held that surrounding circumstances are relevant for construction
of a document only if any ambiguity exists therein and not other
wise. Therefore, it is evident from the above provisions of law that
nothing can be added to the Deed of Partition by way of oral
evidence. The said document at Exhibit PW1/A-colly speaks for
itself. No doubt, there were no survey numbers as mentioned in
paragraph 2A, at the time of said Deed of Partition. But the said
Deed of Partition, in itself, does not show that the property was
divided into various plots, of various dimensions, lying at
particular places, and that some such plots were allotted to the
plaintiffs and some to the defendants. In the circumstances
above, the first substantial question of law gets answered in the
negative, since truely, the said Escritura de Divisao (Deed of
Partition) at Exhibit PW1/A-colly is merely a declaratory
document.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
SECOND APPEAL NO. 57 of 2004
Mr. Lateran Max Francisco Vaz,
Versus
Mrs. Volvetta Gomes,
CORAM :- U. V. BAKRE, J.
Pronounced on : 13 th June, 2014 .
Citation; 2015(3) ALLMR594 Goa high court
Print Page
Ltd.”(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a document,
as is well known, must primarily be construed on the basis of the
terms and conditions contained therein and that it is also trite
that while construing a document the Court shall not supply any
words which the author thereof did not use. It has been further
held that surrounding circumstances are relevant for construction
of a document only if any ambiguity exists therein and not other
wise. Therefore, it is evident from the above provisions of law that
nothing can be added to the Deed of Partition by way of oral
evidence. The said document at Exhibit PW1/A-colly speaks for
itself. No doubt, there were no survey numbers as mentioned in
paragraph 2A, at the time of said Deed of Partition. But the said
Deed of Partition, in itself, does not show that the property was
divided into various plots, of various dimensions, lying at
particular places, and that some such plots were allotted to the
plaintiffs and some to the defendants. In the circumstances
above, the first substantial question of law gets answered in the
negative, since truely, the said Escritura de Divisao (Deed of
Partition) at Exhibit PW1/A-colly is merely a declaratory
document.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
SECOND APPEAL NO. 57 of 2004
Mr. Lateran Max Francisco Vaz,
Versus
Mrs. Volvetta Gomes,
CORAM :- U. V. BAKRE, J.
Pronounced on : 13 th June, 2014 .
Citation; 2015(3) ALLMR594 Goa high court
