Evidence of oral agreement to vary sale consideration in a registered Sale Deed is barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) sold a property in Ghaziabad to the Respondents (Defendants).

While an initial Agreement to Sell dated 14.04.2019 fixed the consideration at Rs. 1,20,00,000

the subsequent registered Sale Deed dated 23.09.2019 recorded the consideration as Rs. 66,12,000

The Appellant alleged the lower figure was used to avoid taxes and that the Respondents issued three cheques totaling Rs. 11,00,000 toward the "actual" balance, which were subsequently dishonored

The Appellant filed a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII of the CPC. The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, holding the suit barred by the terms of the registered Sale Deed and the Indian Evidence Act

Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, regarding the novation of contracts through the substitution of new terms

Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which prohibits evidence of the terms of a written contract other than the document itself, and Section 92, which excludes oral evidence that contradicts, varies, adds to, or subtracts from the terms of a proved written instrument

Precedents including Om Prakash v. IOCL Officers Welfare Society and Jai Bhagwan v. Rajesh were cited to establish that once a registered deed records full payment, a recovery suit for "balance" consideration is legally barred

The Court reasoned that the execution of the Sale Deed with a consideration of Rs. 66,12,000 superseded the earlier Agreement to Sell, amounting to a legal novation

Under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, the Appellant is strictly prohibited from leading any evidence to contradict the terms of the registered Sale Deed

The Court observed that since the Sale Deed explicitly stated that the entire consideration of Rs. 66,12,000 had been paid, the Appellant’s claim that cheques were issued for a "hidden" balance of a higher amount was untenable

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Appellant’s own admission of participating in cash transactions to avoid tax liability disentitled him from seeking judicial redress to enforce such illegal or underhand transactions

The final order confirmed that the suit was rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 as the claims were barred by the Indian Evidence Act and the principle of novation