The Patna High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal against the Single Judge's order in a suit regarding a sale deed. The court held that oral evidence cannot override written terms under Section 92 of the Evidence Act and accorded no merit to the appeals.
Appeal is dismissed; interim order is revoked.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.813 of 2010 IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10188 of 2003
=========================================================== Durga Prasad Das @ Durga Prasad Dhobi, S/o Late Letar Dhobi, R/o Vill Gorkatti, P.S. Goh (Uphara), District-Aurangabad (Bihar). .... .... Appellant. Versus
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Chandra Prasad Bharti, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Praveen Prakash, Adv.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 29-07-2015
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant,
learned counsel for the contesting respondents and gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we find no reason to interfere in the matter and we agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had considered all aspects of the matter in great detail.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that contrary to what is written in the document and contrary to
Patna High Court LPA No.813 of 2010 dt.29-07-2015
his own handwritten statement in the said document, he had not received any part of the consideration money.
In our view, in view of the principles enshrined in Section-92 of the Indian Evidence Act, no such oral evidence can be accepted as against the terms written in the document of sale. It is then urged that the Collector had no jurisdiction in the matter while the matter was still pending adjudication before the District Sub-Registrar. We cannot accept this submission inasmuch as when the District SubRegistrar failed to issue summons, the matter was taken to the District Collector in appeal. It is then submitted that the proceedings was barred by limitation. We again do not agree with submission, in view of the finding as recorded by the learned Single Judge who has clearly noticed that though the document of sale was executed it could not be presented for registration because of strike in the State as also in the office of the Registrar. When the strike was over, it was duly presented but, in the meantime, the appellant managed to sell the property (to respondent nos.8 and 9) who were deleted from the proceedings before this Court.
Thus, while agreeing with the order of the learned
Patna High Court LPA No.813 of 2010 dt.29-07-2015
Single Judge, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Any interim order passed in this case shall stand revoked.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
(Nilu Agrawal, J.)
Trivedi/NAFR
U
Durga Prasad Das @ Durga Prasad Dhobi
The State of Bihar
The Collector, Aurangabad (Bihar)
The Registrar, Registry Office Aurangabad (Bihar)
The Sub-Registrar, Registry Office, Daudnagar, Aurangabad (Bihar)
Smt. Radhika Devi
Navaniti Prasad Singh
Nilu Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
