When Documentary Evidence Is Placed On Record, It Excludes Oral Evidence: Karnataka High Court

The regular second appeal before the High Court was filed challenging the concurrent judgment in concluding that Narayanappa R.M., who is the husband of the first plaintiff, is the son of one Doddamarappa.

The Single Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh said, “Further, Chapter VI of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is very clear with regard to exclusion of evidence of oral agreement by documentary evidence and when the documents have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained. It is very clear that when the documentary evidence is placed on record and the same excludes the oral evidence.”

Advocate Viswanatha Shetty V. represented the Appellants while Senior Counsel Suresh S. Lokre represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The first plaintiff, Muniyamma, is the wife of the deceased Narayanappa R.M., and the second plaintiff is their daughter. They claimed the relief of the partition of a half share in respect of the suit schedule properties. The case of the plaintiffs was that deceased Narayanappa R.M. is the brother of the first defendant, and the suit schedule properties also belong to Narayanappa R.M., and hence, they had a share. The first defendant contended that Narayanappa R.M. is not his brother, and the plaintiffs are not related to him and his family.

The Trial Court concluded that the suit-scheduled properties are joint family properties of her husband and the defendants and consequently, granted the relief of partition. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court, but the same was dismissed. It was in such circumstances that the second appeal came to be filed before the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that as per the documentary evidence of the certified copy of the registered sale deed, the name of Narayanappa R.M. was not mentioned in the sale deed which came into existence in the year 1963 itself and and while executing the sale deed in favour of the prospective purchaser and on behalf of the minor son (first defendant), the father had executed the sale deed. As per the Bench, if Narayanappa R.M. were his son, he would have made him a party to the sale deed.

Referring to the sale deed, the Bench noted that the same is a registered document and a more than 30-year-old document. The Bench noted that the oral evidence which had been relied upon by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court did not support the circumstances which proved the fact that Narayanappa R.M. was the son of Doddamarappa and the documentary evidence excluded oral evidence, since the documentary evidence mentioned the minor son and did not mention the name of Narayanappa R.M. “If really he is the son of Narayanappa R.M., he would have joined as one of the vendor to the said sale deed”, it added.

The Bench further found that the sister of the first defendant (prosecution witness) failed to withstand the cross-examination regarding the chief evidence, and in the cross-examination, she deposed that she was not aware of Narayanappa R.M.

Thus, allowing the regular second appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

Cause Title: Muniyappa Since Deceased by His Lrs v. Muniyamma ( Cause Title: Regular Second Appeal No.1977/2021 (PAR/INJ)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Viswanatha Shetty V.

Respondent: Senior Counsel Suresh S. Lokre, Advocate Shravan S. Lokre

Click here to read/download Order