Transaction in different documents between same parties Read together

The Supreme Court of India in the case of S. Chattanatha Karayalar v. Central Bank of India Ltd., (AIR 1965 SC 1856) held that : "Where a transaction between the same parties is contained in more than one document, they must be read and interpreted together and they have the same legal effect for all purposes as if they are one document."

In case of HER HIGHNESS MAHARANI SHANTIDEVI P. GAIKWAD Vs.SAVJIBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL & ORS. It is quoted from English decision that "Where several deeds form part of one transaction and are contemporaneously executed they have the same effect for all purposes such as are relevant to this case as if they were one deed. Each is executed on the faith of all the others being executed also and is intended to speak only as part of the one transaction, and if one is seeking to make equities apply to the parties they must be equities arising out of the transaction as a whole."

In case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd.& Anr.v.The State of Gujarat &Anr. It is quoted that "In the process of interpretation of the terms of a contract, the court can frequently get great assistance from the interpreting statements made by the parties themselves or from their conduct in rendering or in receiving performance under it. Parties can, by mutual agreement, make their own contracts; they can also by mutual agreement, remake them. The process of practical interpretation and application, however, is not regarded by the parties as a remaking of the contract; nor do the courts so regard it. Instead, it is merely a further expression by the parties of the meaning that they give and have given to the terms of their contract previously made. There is no good reason why the courts should not give great weight to these further expressions by the parties, in view of the fact that they still have the same freedom of contract that they had originally. The American Courts receive subsequent actions as admissible guides in interpretation. It is true that one party cannot build up his case by making an interpretation in his own favour. It is the concurrence therein that such a party can use against the other party. This concurrence may be evidenced by the other party’s express assent thereto, performances that indicate it, or by saying nothing when he knows that the first party is acting on reliance upon the interpretation."