AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shinde, J.—The only point for consideration in this case is whether evidence of any oral agreement can be admitted for the purpose of varying the terms of a contract which has been reduced to writing. Deviprasad Petitioner filed a suit against Manohara and Motiram in the Small Causes Court, Gwalior on the basis of a bond for the recovery of Rs. 210/-. The Defendants pleaded discharge of the debt by putting in one year''s service at the rate of Rs. 10/- a month. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff on the ground of discharges. Hence this revision.
The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the bond being in writing its terms cannot be varied by an oral agreement. The bond, no doubt, states that Rs. 24/- will be paid at the rate of Rs. 2/- a month within a year, and Rs. 100/- will also be paid within a year. But the Defendants pleaded that subsequently there was an oral agreement by which it was agreed between the parties that Rs. 120/- borrowed under the bond would be paid, by Defendant 1 serving, with the Plaintiff for a year as gardener on Rs. 10/- a month. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that oral agreement cannot be proved to vary the terms of a written agreement. Section 92 of the Evidence Act reads as follows:
When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement'' or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to air such instrument or their representatives (sic) interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms ....
Proviso 4: The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to resci(sic)d or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the. registration of document.
Section 92 Evidence Act no doubt lays down at evidence of any oral agreement shall not be admitted as between the parties to any such instrument for the purpose of contradicting, varying or subtracting from its terms. But there are several exceptions to this general rule. Proviso 4 allows oral agreement to be proved to modify the terms of a written contract provided written contract is not required by law to be in writing. The law does not require that a contract of the debt in dispute must be in writing. Therefore, an oral agreement can be proved to modify the terms of a Written contract. Vide - ''Durga Datt v. R.J. Wood and Co., Delhi'' AIR 1933 Lah 453 (A) and - ''Subba Row v. Narasimham'' 27 Mad 368 (B). The contention of the applicant, therefore, has no force.
No other point has been raised in this revision. The revision, therefore, fails. Accordingly the application in revision is dismissed with costs.