S. SAKTIVEL (DEAD) BY LRS. versus M. VENUGOPAL PILLAI AND ORS

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 10-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S. SAKTIVEL (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
M. VENUGOPAL PILLAI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 10, 2000 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Indian Evidence Act 1872-Section 92 proviso 4-Suit for partition-
Plaintiff claiming a share on the basis of a registered settlement deed-
De.fendant alleging a subsequent oral .(amity arrangement modifying the terms 
A 
B 
uf settlement-Whether parol evidence can be let in to substantiate a subse-
C 
quent oral arrangement rescinding or modifying the terms of a registered 
settlement deed-Held, no. 
The respondent - plaintiff, one of the three sons of deceased 'M' filed 
a suit for partition against his brother viz. the appellants' father under a 
registered settlement deed executed by the deceased 'M' in 1915. The 
D 
deceased defendant contended that as a result of a subsequent oral family 
arrangement in 1941 the settlement was modified and the property was 
allotted to him exclusively and other sons were given cash. Both the parties 
in the trial court proceeded on the basis that the registered document Ex. 
All is a settlement and not Will. The trial court dismissed the suit holding 
E 
that in view of proviso (4) to Section 92 of the Evidence Act the contesting 
defendant can lead oral evidence to substantiate the subsequent oral ar-
rangements arrived at amongst the members of the family. 
The First Appeal filed by the plaintiff w;.s allowed holding that in 
view of proviso (4) to section 92 of the Evidence Act it is not open to the 
F 
parties to let in oral evidence to modify, vary or subtract the terms of the 
registered document. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by appellants was 
dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the view taken 
by the High Court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff was erroneous 
inasmuch as the settlees under Ex. All got the suit property and by the 
subsequent oral arrangement they agreed to work out their rights without 
varying or substituting the terms of Ex. All and, therefore, the High Court 
was not right in not considering the oral arrangement as pleaded by the 
defendant/appellant and that Ex. All in fact is not a settlement deed but is 
361 
G 
H 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
a Will and therefore parol evidence is admissible to substantiate the subse-
quent oral arrangement. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Before the trial Court the plaintiff and the defendants 
agreed that Ex. All is a settlement deed and not a Will and the trial Court 
proceeded on the basis that the document Ex. All is a registered settlement 
deed. This Court is not deposed to entertain the contention of the appellant 
that it is a will and not a settlement. (367-B] 
2. Where under law a contract or disposition are required to be in 
writing and the same has been reduced in writing, its terms cannot be 
modified or altered or substituted by oral contract or disposition. No parol 
evidence will be admissible to substantiate such an oral contract or dispo-
sition. A document for its validity or effectiveness is required by law to be 
in writing and, therefore, no modification or alteration or substitution of 
such written documents is permissible by parol evidence and it is only by 
another written document the terms of earlier written document can be 
altered, rescinded or substituted. [366-C-DJ 
3. The settlement deed is a registered document. The second part of 
proviso (4) to section 92 does not permit leading of parol evidence for 
proving a subsequent oral agreement modifying or rescinding the regis-
tered instrument. The terms of registered document can be altered, re-
scinded or varied only by subsequent registered document and not other-
wise. [366-E] 
4. Where there is a conferment of title to the property, Jaw requires it 
be in writing for its efficacy and effectiveness. A document becomes effec-
tive by reason of the fact that it ls in writing. Once under law a document 
is required to be in writing parties to such a document cannot be permitted 
to let in parol evidence to substantiate any subsequent arrangement which 
has the effect of modifying earlier written document. If such parol evi-
dence is permitted it would divest the rights of other parties to the written 
document. The subsequent oral arrangement set up by the defendant· 
appellant cannot be proved by the parol evidence. Such an evidence is not 
admissible in evidence. [366-G-B; 367-AJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil App

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.