executed by the plaintiff and her mother. When the terms of the release are reduced to form a document and the execution and registration of the same is proved, no oral evidence or statement shall be admitted as between the parties to any such instrument for the purpose of contradicting, varying or adding or subtracting its terms. Though proviso (1) to Section 92 of Evidence Act save the pleading which would invalidate the document, this Court is unable to find any plea which would invalidate the registered release deed whose execution is admitted. Though it is pleaded in the plaint that no consideration was paid under the release deed, the fact that the plaintiff has acknowledged the receipt of a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs towards her share to release the same in favour of the defendant, is admitted. In the plaint, it is stated that, in order to avoid taxation, a formal recital was made as if the releasor had received a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs. The plaintiff stated that the defendant agreed to pay plaintiff the value of her share but did not pay any amount as promised. The document, therefore, cannot be challenged for want of consideration or failure of consideration. The suit is filed in 2014, seven years after the release deed, without a prayer to set aside the document of release. Plaintiff cannot avoid the registered deed of Page 5 of 7
