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

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

Parol evidence is not admissible to prove subsequent oral arrangements that modify or rescind the terms of a written or registered settlement deed, as prohibited by Section 92, proviso 4 of the Evidence Act. If a disposition is required by law to be in writing, only another written document can alter its terms.

Parties
Appellant: S. Saktivel (Dead) by Lrs.; Respondent: M. Venugopal Pillai; Respondent: Appavu Pillai (deceased); Respondent: Singaravaelu Pillai (deceased)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment (final Disposition)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Partition, Registered Settlement Deed, Parol Evidence, Family Arrangement
Civil Law Property Law Evidence Law Partition Registered Settlement Deed Parol Evidence Family Arrangement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. Saktivel (Dead) by Lrs.

Appellant

M. Venugopal Pillai

Respondent

Appavu Pillai (deceased)

Respondent

Singaravaelu Pillai (deceased)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parol evidence is admissible to substantiate a subsequent oral arrangement modifying or rescinding the terms of a registered settlement deed

Ratio Decidendi

Parol evidence is not admissible to prove subsequent oral arrangements that modify or rescind the terms of a written or registered settlement deed, as prohibited by Section 92, proviso 4 of the Evidence Act. If a disposition is required by law to be in writing, only another written document can alter its terms.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.