1. Bai Hira Devi Vs Official Assignee of Bombay, 1958 AIR SC 448. ( section 91 applies to all documents either unilateral or bilateral. Section 92 applies only to bilateral documents)
2. Roop Kumar Vs Mohan Thedani, 2003 (6) SCC 595 ( section 91 speaks about Best evidence Rule)
3. V.Anantha Raj Vs T.M. Narasimhan, 2021Supreme SC 640 ( presumption that writing is full and final Statement of intentions to avoid future controversy, bad faith and treacherous memory)
4. Balkishan Das Vs W.E.Leggie, ILR 22 All P.C 149 ( Sale and agreement to repurchase constituting mortgage by conditional sale not permissible to ascertain sale or mortgage)
5. Sakthivel Vs Venugopal Pillai, 2000 AIR SC 2633 ( settlement – no oral evidence to show that four persons got right and one has received money and relinquishing his right for partition) ( requires reconsideration)
6. Nanjappan Vs Ramaswamy, 2015(14) SCC 341( specific performance suit- Lesser amount to avoid stamp duty is not admissible)
7. K.S.Narashiman Vs Indo Commercial Bank Ltd, 1965 AIR(MAD) 147 ( different consideration than stated cannot be pleaded. But total want of consideration is admissible)
8. Mohammed Taki Khan Vs Jang Singh, 1935 AIR ALL 529 F.B ( 1. No evidence that the sum is not payable. 2. Receipt of consideration not part of the contract – admissible. 3.not open to a mortgagor that the transaction is not for the sum stated but open to say that he has not received money)
9. Sangli Bank Ltd Vs Bhimappa, 2006 AIR Kar 488 ( promissory note – oral evidence that it is not payable till the happening of an event / admissible)
10. Bhogi Ram s Kishore Lal, ILR 1928 All 754
CONDUCT OF PARTIES
11. Preonath Vs Madhu, 1898 (25) Cal 603 F.B ( oral evidence that the intention to execute is only a mortgage and not sale is admissible)
12. Baksu Lakshman Vs Govinda Kanji, 1880 (4) BOM 594 ( Cannot start by letting in evidence. But the conduct of the parties can be shown that the transaction was treated only as a mortgage rather than a sale)
13. Rakken Vs Alagappaudayyan, 1892(16)Mad 80 ( Referred and relied on Baksu case)
Sham and Nominal
14. Ishwar Das Jain Vs Sohan Lal, 2000AIR(SC) 426= 2000(1)SCC 434 ( Mortgage executed only as security admissible, but not proved in that case)
Challenging the document
15. Yadav Ram Vs Lakshman Singh, 1978 AIR All 128 D.B. (No agreement at all is Permissible)
16. Thyagaraja Mudaliar Vs Vedathanni, 1936 AIR P.C. 70 ( No agreement at all is admissible)
17. Mottayappan Vs Palani Gounder, 1915 AIR Mad 855 ( Not permissible to prove a gift is only a will)
18. Ganga bhai Vs Chhabubai, 1982 AIR(SC) 20= 1982(1) SCC 4 (Bar is only when relying on the document. A person challenging the same is not bound by it and he can let in evidence, even though a party)
19. Roop Kanwar Vs Mohan Thedani, 2003 AIR SC 2418=2003(6) SCC 595 ( relied on Ganga Bhai)
20. Placid Francisco Pinto Vs. Jose Francisco Pinto. 2021(8)MLJ SC565 ( relied on Ganga Bhai)
Possessory Mortgage to Simple Mortgage
21. Moan Feroz Shah Vs Shobat Khan, 1933 AIR PC 178 ( Possessory mortgage, possession is a term of the contract. No evidence is admissible to show it is only a simple mortgage)
Evidence for placing in possession under a Simple mortgage instead of interest
22. Collector of Etah Vs Kishore Lal, 1930 AIR All 721 F.B ( payment of interest is not varying the terms of the contract. Possession instead of interest admissible)
23. Sahib Din Vs Dhanukdharji, 1948 AIR Oudh 129 ( interest can be paid in cash or kind. Putting in possession is paying in kind. Admissible if the document doesn’t specifically mandate that interest must be paid in cash)
Execution of Decree
24. Adappa Papamma Vs Dorbha Venkayya 1935 AIR(Mad) 860 F.B ( Decree cannot be varied or modified by an act of parties. Can be done by the court. It is a procedure and not a rule of evidence)
MISTAKE AND RECESSION
25. Venkatachala Pathi Vs Ramakrishnayya, 1927 AIR Mad 1102 (Joint sale. Evidence admissible to show the extent of each sharer) ( see section 45 of T.P.Act)
AMBIGUOUS DOCUMENT- SECTION 93
26. Keshav Lal Vs Lallubhai Patel, AIR 1958 SC512 ( Not open to remove vagueness or defect)
27. Janardhan Vs Narayan Bhaskar, AIR 1937 BOM 496 ( correction in WILL initialled as K.G.Godbole instead of K.N.Godbole in one place of a will. Other places corrected. Evidence admissible)
UNMEANING – SECTION 95
28. P.K.A.R.C.O.S Society Vs Govt of Palestine, AIR 1949P.C ( boundaries prevail over misdescription in Survey number and extent)
29. Durga Prasad Vs Rajendra Narain, 37 CAL 293 (Boundary will prevail) (Reversed in 40 I.A. 223 on facts)
30. Kali Saran Vs Hari Ram AIR 1958 Punj 13( conflict between document and decree)
31. Home Vs Struben,1902 A.C 454( conflict in text and Map, the text will prevail)
32. Hussonally Sulemanji vs Tribhowan Das, AIR 1921 AIR P.C. 40 ( Conflicting statement in body and schedule – admissible)
PATENT AND LATENT AMBIGUITY
33. Kerorimal Vs Union of India, AIR 1959 Cal 430 (PATENT- writers incapacity by perception or explanation- not permissible. Arbitration clause chief engineer / additional chief engineer void for uncertainty. The latent defect can be removed by oral evidence.
34. Ramachandra Vs Chairman, Rajgir, 1965 AIR Pat 174( person named as member of the area committee. Three persons by the same name. Latent/ evidence admissible
