Case Commentary - Mangala Waman Karandikar (D) TR. LRS. vs. Prakash Damodar Ranande 2021 [C.A.No. 10827/2010]” By - Arpit Garg
Case Commentary - Mangala Waman
Karandikar (D) TR. LRS. vs. Prakash Damodar Ranande 2021 [C.A.No. 10827/2010]”
Authored By - Arpit Garg
INTRODUCTION
In this case Honourable Supreme Court Of India held that section
92 and section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act that deals with the exclusion of
the oral agreements and the evidence to document in the meaning of the existing
facts respectively and also when the contract provisions are simple and evident
then there is no necessity for looking in the extrinsic evidence.
Facts
In this case it emerged on the
contract which is between the respondent and the petitioner. In this case
petitioner husband is died and he was running a business in the name of
“Karandikar Siblings” after the death of the husband wife maintained the business
of the husband, when she was not able to maintain that business wife let the
respondent to deal with it after that wife and the respondent went into a
contract which was also stretched out occasionally. In 1980 wife served a
notice to the respondent to leave the premises by 31st January 1981,
after that respondent asserted that the contract was the rent arrangement in a
strict sense after this appealing party went to the court of joint civil judge and
filed a civil suit. The trial court which is also a civil court gave the
judgement in favour of the petitioner and also held that agreement was to
create sales in the business and also court held that to surrender the property
to the petitioner, after that respondent went to the honourable Bombay High Court
and High Court held that the respondent went into a licence arrangement under
section 15A of the Bombay rent act.
Issues
Issues which was analyzed by the Honorable
Court was whether the proviso to the section 95&92 will be applied if the
document is not clear or ambiguous.
Judgement Analysis
Appeal which is filed by the lady
against the judgement of the High Court ,Supreme Court held that it was obvious
from perusing of the contract that parties had expected to move its business to
the respondent from the appellant and was also not implied as a rent or also
not give the any type of permit to the respondent to lead the business.
Supreme Court also held that dependent
on the provision 6 to the section 92 of the Indian Evidence act and also
section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act was not call in this case because the
document was clear in its importance.
Chief Justice Of India Justice NV
Ramana held that in any type of case where an archive is clear and also not
present any type of difficulty in understanding it then the proviso does not
matter then in such manner, we may express section 95 just expand on the
section 92 proviso 6.
If any contrary view is received as it
will deliver the section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act it also amplifies the
ambit of the proviso beyond the primary section itself, such type of
interpretation given by the Honourable High Court violate the fundamental
tenant of lawful interpretation and also section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act
prohibits the evidence of any agreement which is oral which will also differ,
subtract, add, repudiate from its term. Justice Surya Kant and Justice
Aniruddha Bose also give their opinion oral evidence can be gotten to show that
the conditions of the record was fully different from those which was
communicated in that and also it will add to agreeing with the authorities to
offer the evidence to shift those terms or negate those terms and also it comes
to surprisingly near to the section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act and also it
can’t be hypothesised that legislature which proposed to nullify the object of
the section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act by enacting exemptions for that
section.
Supreme Court set aside the judgement
of the High Court and re-establishes the judgement of the trial court which
held that respondent to surrender the premises to the petitioner.
Conclusion
Supreme Court of India after hearing
both the parties held that contractual interpretation depend on the intention
express by the parties and bringing out the actual meaning is iterative process
for the courts, while dredging out intention of the parties court held that there
will be a there was the transparent transfer of business to the respondent from
the appellant and also it had never been meant as a licence or a lease the
opinion of this case was based on the Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma 2012
in this case court held that if the interpretation of the high court will be
taken then there would violates the fundamental tenants of legal interpretation
and also enlarge the scope of proviso beyond the section further in this case
it was also held that section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act prohibits any oral
evidence which can be contradict subtract, vary or increase the terms it also
went to carry the ambit of the section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act which
isn’t appreciated by the honourable high court and by which court doesn’t
appreciate the ambiguous language of the contract and only appreciate the
evidence which amount to breach of contract.
References
Advance.lexis.com. 2022. Lexis® - Sign In | LexisNexis.
[online] Available at:
[Accessed 22 March 2022].
Scconline.com. 2022. SCC Online | Login For
DocumentLink. [online] Available at:
[Accessed 22 March
2022].
Ratanlal. & Dhirajlal., The Law Of
Evidence (27th ed. 2021).