Nara Reddiar vs Doraiswami Reddi

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.—The argument in this Revision Petition is that as the promissory note recites that cash was received for the execution of

the note, it is not open to the plaintiff to prove that the consideration was different from what was recited in the document. Reliance was placed for

this purpose upon a decision of this Court reported in Adityam Aiyar v. Ramakrishna Aiyar ILR (1913) M. 511 s. c. 25 M.L.J. 602. All that was

decided in that case was that by oral evidence, it is not open to the parties to add to the amount of the consideration mentioned in a document. The

question as to whether the actual nature of the consideration that passed between the parties can be proved by oral evidence was not considered

in the case. It is settled law that the recital in a document as regards consideration having been paid in a particular way can be proved to have been

falsely made. It is enough to mention in this connection the decision of the Judicial Committee reported in Lal Achal Ram v. Rajn Kasim Husain

Khan (1905) L.R. 32 IndAp 113. There it was pointed out by Lord Macnaghten that an untrue recital in a deed should not preclude evidence

being given of the real consideration. In a later case Hanifunnissa v. Faizunnissa ILR (1911) A. 340 s. c. 21 M.L.J. 1126 the Judicial Committee

held that the nature of the consideration can be proved by oral evidence. This is also the view taken also by Mr. Justice Banerjee in Chunni Bibi v.

Basanti Bibi ILR (1914) A. 537. Speaking for myself, I have no hesitation in holding that it is open to the parties to an instrument to show that the

special consideration mentioned in the document is not really what passed between them. That seems to follow from Clause 1 of Section 92 of the

Evidence Act. I think the District Munsif was right in this case in allowing evidence to be gone into regarding consideration ; he has found that there

was good consideration for the note. This petition must be dismissed with costs.