BACKGROUND
The plaintiff filed a suit for the declaration of title and confirmation of possession over a piece of land, seeking recovery of possession if dispossessed during the suit and a permanent injunction against the defendant. The defendant responded with a written statement. During the recording of the defendant’s evidence, the Munsif-I, Munger, barred the plaintiff’s counsel from cross-examining the defendant on the boundary details in the sale deed, citing Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibits altering document contents through oral evidence. The order dated April 22, 2016, was challenged by the plaintiff through a review petition on May 21, 2016, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 05 of 2016 but was subsequently rejected on March 2, 2017. The plaintiff then contested these orders in the Patna High Court through Civil Misc. Petition No. 1076 of 2017, dated June 26, 2024.
The petitioner claimed that the suit property, originally owned by Ram Sahay Yadav and partially sold to Jhagru Gope, was transferred to the petitioner by Gope’s wife in 1949 with an incorrect plot number (654 instead of 659) due to a deed writer’s mistake. The petitioner corrected this mistake in 1989, resulting in an updated Jamabandi. Later, the petitioner bought more land from Genhari Yadav, but the error recurred. Despite past panchayati acknowledgment of the mistake and resolution of a right-of-way dispute, the respondent sought to claim the land by filing a petition to correct the jamabandi. The petitioner appealed, leading to a civil court directive to resolve the issue, resulting in Title Suit No. 23 of 2011. The petitioner argued that the trial court wrongly prevented cross-examination on boundary details, misapplying Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner sought to clarify boundaries, not alter document terms, citing Supreme Court decisions allowing correction of misdescriptions and oral evidence in such cases, arguing that the trial court’s orders were legally unsustainable and should be set aside.
The respondent’s counsel argued that the trial court’s order was correct and should be upheld, as Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act bar questions about the contents of a registered document. The respondent contended that the petitioner’s claim was based on a fraudulent document since the respondent’s father, who allegedly sold the land, died in 1977, making it impossible for him to execute a sale deed in 1980. The respondent maintained possession of Plot No. 659, contrary to the petitioner’s claim of an incorrect plot number in the 1949 sale deed. The respondent argued that Ram Sahay Yadav never sold Plot No. 659 to Jhagru Gope, making the correction deed by Dhaniya Devi invalid. The respondent’s Jamabandi was restored, and the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Collector. The respondent’s counsel asserted that the petitioner’s cited cases were irrelevant due to differing facts, and the petition should be dismissed.
UPDATE
Justice Arun Kumar Jha of the Patna High Court reviewed the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 91 emphasizes that the terms of a document must be proved by the document itself or secondary evidence. Section 92 generally prohibits oral evidence to contradict the terms of a written document but allows exceptions under certain conditions, such as fraud, mistake, or misdescription. The High Court noted that Sections 91 and 92 are based on the “best evidence rule,” which requires that superior evidence (the document itself) be used to prove the terms of a document. However, the Court also recognized the exceptions under proviso (1) of Section 92, which allows oral evidence in cases of fraud, mistake, or misdescription. The Court acknowledged that a mistake in the plot number, as claimed by the petitioner, could be considered a genuine and accidental mistake, thus falling under the exception. The first vendor’s admission of a mistake and the subsequent rectification deed supported the petitioner’s claim of misdescription. Consequently, the High Court held that the petitioner could cross-examine the respondent on the plot’s boundary details to prove the alleged misdescription. Thus, The High Court set aside the Munsif Court’s order, allowing the petitioner to present oral evidence and cross-examine the respondent regarding the misdescription of the plot number in the sale deed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – PRATYASA MISHRA
