WHAT IS PAROL EVIDENCE RULE?
IS IT APPLICABLE IN INDIAN LAW?
IF THERE ARE TWO AGREEMENTS WITH VARYING TERMS MADE AT DIFFERENT DATES AND A TITLE SUIT (SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE) IS FILED RELYING ON ANTECEDENT AGREEMENT WHOSE EXECUTION IS NOT DENIED BY THE RESPONDENT, CAN THE PRECEDENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS EXECUTED WITH DIFFERENT CONDITIONS BUT NO OBLIGATION WAS OBSERVED AND/ OR PERFORMED, INCONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT BE MADE INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE.
OR SHALL THE PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL ASK THE RESPONDENT TO FILE A CROSS SUIT RELYING ON THE AGREEMENT ON WHICH HE CLAIMS RELIEF.
eg.
\"X\"-seller and \"Y\"-buyer on 01.01.11 X entered into an agreement for sale(unreistered) with "full furniture" in respect of a flat to Y, for a consideration of 2700000/- with a condition to complete the transaction by 31.03.11. Y issued a cheque for rupees 100000/- as advance money.
X changed his mind and decided not to part with furniture on account of his sentimental attachment.
X returned the advance money cheque on the very next day without encashing the same and took back the original agreement.
both X and Y mutually rescinded the agreement and decided that both were absolved from all obligations and liabilities of the said agreement.
at a later date i.e, on 28.02.11, after fresh verbal negotiation,it was decided between both the parties that X would sell the flat @ rs.20,00000/- on as is where is and without furniture condition.
X executed a deed of sale on 30.03.2011, which carried no reference of any agreement for sale, in favor of Y at an agreed price of 20,00000/-, but the same could not be registered that day as time for presentation was over.
Later X refused to co-operate for registration.
Y approached court for injunction for sale of said property and specific performance of contract, on 118th day from execution of deed fearing that the document may hit limitation under regn act, produced the duly executed sale deed (as document to be relied upon made as per oral agreement dated 28.02.2011) pending registration and was granted interim injunction.
Y has claimed relief- execution and registration of fresh deed or registration of executed deed and hand over of physical possession.
X then appeared during hearing for extension of injunction, and filed a doctored copy of previous agreement for sale (wherein terms "with furniture" have been removed)with objection petition stating that agreed price was rupees 27,00000/- as per agreement dated 01.01.2011 and not 20,00000/- as in deed.X also stated that the agreement for sale dated 1.1.2011 had expired on 31.03.2011 as per clause therein and further claimed that the original of agreement for sale dated 01.01.2011 is with the plaintiff "Y". The plaintiff has denied the same in affidavit in reply.
X has not denied or accepted the execution of sale deed dt.28.02.2011 in his objection petition, rather he has stated that he had gone to registrars office with the plaintiff Y but the registrar refused registration as he found the property to be undervalued. the defendant X has not filed any order of refusal u/s.76 of regn act.court has made the injunction absolute till disposal of suit.
court has further noted that without ad-idem execution of deed was not possible and the defendant himself claims that he had gone to registrar's office with the plaintiff.
Y has the original executed deed of sale dated 28.02.2011,which carries no reference of any agreement dated 01.01.2011, and is duly signed and with finger prints and photographs.
can the court ask the defendant X to file a cross suit relying on the agreement on which he claims relief?
can the court not allow the precedent agreement to be admitted as evidence as it is inconsistent with terms of the precedent and final document?
if at all the court admits the photocopy of the agreeement as an evidence, the onus to prove the agreement lies on whom?
