In
sum and substance, what proviso (4) to Section 92 provides is that where
a contract or disposition, not required by law to be in writing, has
been arrived at orally, then subsequent oral agreement modifying
or rescinding the said contract or disposition can be substantiated by
parol evidence and such evidence is admissible. Thus, if a party has
entered into a contract which is not required to be reduced in writing
but such a contract has been reduced in writing or it is oral, in such
situations it is always open to the parties to the contract to100 modify its terms and even substitute by
oral contract and it can be substantiated by parol evidence. In such
kind120 // of
cases, the oral evidence can be let in to prove that the earlier contract or
agreement has been modified or substituted by new oral agreement. Where
under law, a contract or disposition is required to be in writing and the same
has been reduced in writing, its terms cannot be modified or altered
or substituted by oral contract or disposition. No parol evidence will be
admissible to substantiate such an oral contract or disposition. A document for
its200 validity or effectiveness
is required by law to be in writing and, therefore, no modification or an
alteration or substitution of such written document is permissible
by parol evidence and it is only by another written document the terms
of earlier240 // written
document can be altered, rescinded or substituted.
There
is another reason why the defendant or appellant
cannot be permitted to let in parol evidence to substantiate the subsequent
oral arrangement. The reason is that the settlement deed is a registered
document. The second part of proviso (4) to Section 92 does not permit
leading of parol evidence for300
proving a subsequent oral agreement modifying or rescinding the registered instrument.
The terms of registered document can be altered, rescinded or varied only by
subsequent registered document and not otherwise. If the oral arrangement as
pleaded by the appellant is allowed to be substantiated by parol evidence, it
would mean rewriting of Exhibit-1 and, therefore, no parol evidence is
permissible.360 //
In
view of the aforesaid legal position on interpretation
of proviso (4) to Section 92, we have to examine as to whether settlement deed
was required to be in writing under the law or not. Where there is400 such conferment of title to the property,
law requires it to be in writing for its efficacy and effectiveness. A
document becomes effective by reason of the fact that it is in writing.
Once under law a document is required to be in writing, parties to such a
document cannot be permitted to let in parol evidence to substantiate any
subsequent arrangement which has effect of modifying earlier written document.
If such parol evidence is permitted, it would divest the480 // rights of other parties
to the written document. We are, therefore, of the view that the subsequent
oral arrangement set500 up by
the defendant or appellant cannot be proved by the parol evidence.
Article
81(1)(a) prescribes an absolute limit of 500 elected members in the House of the
People. Article 81(1)(b) provides that the States shall be divided, grouped or
formed into territorial constituencies and the number of members to be
allotted to each such constituency shall be so determined as to
ensure that there shall be not less than one member for every 7,50,000
of the population and not more than one member for every 5,00,000 of the
population.600 // The
present delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies
is based on the estimates of population which have been given legal
validity by an order of the President under Article 387 of the Constitution.
Article 81(3) of the Constitution, however, requires that upon the completion
of each census, the representation of the several territorial
constituencies in the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies
of each State shall be re-adjusted by such authority, in such manner
and with effect from such date as Parliament may by law determines. A Bill
providing for the matters referred to700 in
that Article is being introduced in Parliament. Provision has been made
in that Bill for the setting up of720
// a Delimitation Commission for the purpose of effecting
readjustment of the representation in the House of the People and in the State
Legislative Assemblies on the basis of the population as ascertained
at the Census of 1951.
There
is a considerable difference between the population of the several States as estimated
in the President's order and in the population as ascertained at the Census of
1951. At present, seats have been allotted in the House of800 the People to Part A and Part B States
on the basis of one member for every 7.2 lakhs of the estimated population
giving a total of 470 members to these States. The census figures are
higher840 // in all
cases, and in view of the overall limit of 500 members prescribed in Article
81(1) (a), it is not possible to increase appreciably the total
number of seats allotted to these States.
It is accordingly
necessary to reduce the representation from one member for every 7.2
lakhs of population to one900
member for every 7.5 lakhs of population as per Census of 1951.
As pointed out above, this figure 7.5 lakhs is the maximum permissible
under Article 81(1)(b) as it now stands; but even so, if the average population
of a Parliamentary constituency in any State is to be 7,50,000 it960 // is obvious that the population
of a certain number of constituencies will exceed that figure. It is
necessary, therefore, that Article 81(1)(b) should be amended relaxing the
limits prescribed in that Article so as to1000
avoid a constitutional irregularity in delimiting the constituencies for
the purpose of re-adjustment of representation in the House of the
People as required under Article 81(3) of the Constitution. This Bill
accordingly seeks to amend Article 81(1)(b) of the Constitution so as to
replace the figures mentioned in that Article by the figures 8,50,000 and 6,50,000
respectively.1068
