Synopsis

The plaintiff filed a recovery suit claiming that the defendant had taken a loan of ₹3,20,000, issued a cheque which was dishonoured, and later executed a written settlement agreement to pay ₹1,10,000 in instalments. The defendant paid six instalments (₹60,000) but defaulted. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit, accepting the defendant's oral testimony that he had taken only ₹20,000 and that the settlement was coerced. The High Court reversed the concurrent findings, holding that the lower courts had acted contrary to Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act by allowing oral evidence to contradict a written document. The court decreed the suit for ₹2,60,000 with interest at 5% per annum.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Judgment: 25th April 2026

Citation: 2026:DHC:3457 (RSA No.150/2024)

Core Law: Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 91, 92); Contract Act, 1872 (Section 10)

1. Proper heading of the judgment

High court of delhi

Regular second appeal no.150 of 2024

Kishan Kumar Gupta (appellant) vs. Raj Kumar (respondent)

Coram: Hon'ble ms. justice neena bansal krishna

Reserved on: 13th february, 2026

Pronounced on: 25th april, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Code of civil procedure, 1908 – section 100 (second appeal on substantial question of law)

• Indian evidence act, 1872 – sections 91 and 92 (bar on oral evidence contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from terms of a written document)

• Indian contract act, 1872 – section 10 (free consent essential for a valid contract)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether oral evidence is admissible to contradict the express terms of a written settlement agreement, and whether a defendant who has partially performed a settlement can subsequently challenge it on grounds of coercion without providing specific particulars.

Key legal principles applied:

• Primacy of written documents: Where parties have reduced their contract to writing, no oral evidence is admissible to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from its t

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.