In Brief
In 1971, a registered Sale Deed transferred a house from Tukaram to Hemalatha for ₹10,000, with a concurrent Rental Agreement letting it back to Tukaram. After rent arrears, eviction proceedings began; Tukaram sued claiming the Sale Deed was actually a mortgage by conditional sale—a sham transaction. The trial court agreed, but the appellate court reversed, citing Section 92 of the Evidence Act barring oral evidence contradicting clear written instruments. The High Court restored the trial decree, permitting oral evidence to prove sham. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that registered deeds carry strong presumption of validity; challenging them requires rigorous pleading and cogent evidence. Section 92 bars extrinsic evidence when deed terms are clear and unambiguous. Since no condition for conditional sale appears in the Sale Deed itself, and the Rental Agreement operated for fourteen months with rent payments, the transaction was a genuine sale, not a mortgage.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.