Court Rules Against Oral Evidence to Contradict Registered Documents in Property Dispute
In a significant judgment delivered on February 23, 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed a suit filed by Gopal Krishan Srivastava against M/s Lakras Infracon Pvt. Ltd. and others, concerning a contested property in Dwarka, New Delhi. The plaintiff sought to cancel several registered documents, including an Agreement to Sell and Powers of Attorney, claiming they were intended only as security for a loan, not as actual transfers of property rights.
Presiding Judge, Mr. Subramonium Prasad, emphasized the application of Sections 92 and 95 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which bar oral evidence intended to contradict written contracts unless exceptions such as fraud or mistake are proven. The court found no documentary evidence supporting the plaintiff's assertion that the documents were merely for securing a loan, thereby precluding oral testimony to that effect.
The suit, originally filed in 2022, arose from a series of transactions dating back to 2010 when Srivastava executed several documents in favor of the defendants, purportedly to secure funds for a property allotment by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Despite the plaintiff's contention that these documents were not intended to transfer property rights, the court ruled that the absence of any documented proof of a loan arrangement invalidated his claims.
Additionally, the court dismissed arguments regarding the suit's limitation, noting that the cause of action against the defendants had not arisen in 2011, as claimed by the plaintiff, but pertained to a separate issue with the DDA. Therefore, the objection regarding the limitation period was deemed untenable.
In conclusion, the court ordered the dismissal of the suit based on the admissible evidence, particularly the registered documents which the plaintiff himself submitted. The judgment underscores the legal principle that registered documents, unless proven otherwise by substantial evidence, hold precedence over oral claims in property disputes.
Bottom Line:
Decree dismissing a suit is liable to be passed based on admitted registered documents, as oral evidence contradicting the written contract is precluded under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 92, 95, 74, and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Gopal Krishan Srivastava v. M/s Lakras Infracon Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2857516
