Indian Evidence Act- Exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence (Section 91-100)

Exclusion of oral by documentary evidence

 

Chapter 6 from section 91 to 100 deals with the condition where only documentary evidence can be given.

 

Section 91- Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document

 

There are 4 things

1.   Terms of contract

2.   Terms of grant

3.   Dispositions of property

4.   Law requires that particular thing should be in a form of document

If above cases are reduced to form of document, then evidence of above cases can be given by document itself or by secondary evidence of content of above wherever admissible.

There are additional explanations given in section.

First, document could be one or multiple. In case multiple document, then all those need be used for proof.

Second, when there are more than one original, only one document need to be proved.

Third, for other facts from above mention four things, oral evidence can be given.

There are two exceptions as well. In below cases oral evidence can be given.

First, when there is question of appointment of public officer, then document of appointment of that particular public officer need not be proved. It means no need to prove about letter of appointment.

Second, Wills admitted to probate in India may be proved by the probate.

 

Section 92- Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement

 

Section 92 is elaborated version of section 91. In earlier section we have listed 4 items when they are reduced to writing. After that if such items are proved in court by either primary or secondary evidence section 92 comes into picture. Section 92 further states that once these 4 items are proved no oral evidence can be admitted by parties, or their representatives in interest in certain aspects.

Below are aspects about which no oral evidence can be given

·        For contradicting

·        Varying

·        Addition

·        Or Subtracting in terms

There are however 6 exception to above rules.

1)   It deals with validity of documents. If some facts come to picture because of which document can be invalidate which was proved earlier, in such condition oral evidence can be given. It mean if party can say that after listening to fact, value of document can rejected then court has to listen to such fact. There is illustration (d) given to explain this point. If mine owner induce the other person to work on his minefield and if such inducement is discovered later, oral evidence regarding this can be given in a court.

2)   When document itself is silent on some terms, then oral evidence in that respect can be given in a court. Illustration (f) explains this point. A order goods from B. There was no term related to payment in their contract. B sues for default of payment. A then may give oral evidence that he bought goods on credit. When terms are not mention in contract about certain aspect, evidence related to it can be given orally.

3)   When there is an oral agreement as to condition precedent. In a contract between A and B, if they orally agree that if “X” does not happen whatever we have mention in written agreement will not be valid, then happening of “X” is important. About this “X” oral agreement can be given in court.

4)   This proviso deals with subsequent condition. For example if parties agree orally that some terms may undergo modification or rescission after execution of contract which is written then oral evidence about such modification or rescission can be given in a court.

5)   If there is issue in performing obligation in contract due to customs or usage, then oral evidence regarding this can be given in court.

6)   If there is any word in document, which have different meaning in different areas then to clarify such word oral evidence may be given. For example, “man” mean 20 kg in Eastern Maharashtra related to cotton. It could imply another meaning in nearby Telangana state, in such case to clarify the meaning oral evidence can be adduced.

In Roopkumar Mohan Vs  Mohan Thadani 2003, in this case scope and ambit of section 91 and 92 was discussed by court.

Section 93-Exlusion of evidence to explain or amend ambiguous document

 

From section 93 to section 97, ambiguity is discussed in evidence act.

Section 93 states than if document is ambiguous or confusion; you cannot give evidence to clarify such ambiguity.

There should be patent ambiguity as section mention “on its fact”.

For example, if A says I will sell horse for 1000 Rs or 1500 Rs, in such case no evidence can be adduced to clarify stand of A. This term should be in document to bring this section into action.

Section 94- Exclusion of evidence against application of document to existing fact

 

If language is clear in document, then evidence cannot be given that such language mean different thing.

For example if A sells to B his 2BHK flat located in Delhi, then evidence cannot be given to show that flat is located in Mumbai or A meant 1BHK.

Illustration further explains this point. A sells to B, by deed, “my estate in Rampur containing 100 bighas”. A has an estate at Rampur containing 100 bighas. Evidence may not be given of the fact that the estate meant to be sold was one situated at different place and of a different size.

 

Section 95- Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts

 

When language is simple, but it doesn’t imply the very thing then evidence may be given to clarify it.

Document doesn’t mean anything about fact, but is used in peculiar sense.

Illustration clears the meaning of section. A sells to B by deed “his house in Mumbai”. But his house is actually located in Thane, nearby Mumbai. Later evidence may be given to prove that A actually meant a house in Thane.

This section talks about clearing latent ambiguity.

This section is based on legal maxim “falsa demonstration non necet”, meaning false description not vitiate the document

Section 96- Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several person

 

A agrees to sell to B, for Rs 1000, “my white horse”. In this case A has two horses. The evidence may be given to indicate which horse he meant.

Language used may indicate multiple person/things. Later evidence may be given to specify which person/thing was meant in document.

This section also deals with latent ambiguity.

Section 97- Evidence as to application of language to one of the two sets of fact, to neither of which the whole correctly applies.

 

Let’s understand this by example. A agrees to sell to B “my land at X in the occupation of Y”. A has land at X but it is not in the occupation of Y. A also has land in occupation of Y but it is not at X.

There are two sets of facts, and language used by A doesn’t clearly states what he meant. Therefore evidence can be given to clarify the ambiguity.

Section 98- Evidence as to meaning of illegible characters etc.

 

If language used is illegible or not commonly intelligible, character or foreign obsolete, technical local or provincial expression, then evidence may be given to clarify such language.

 

Section 99- Who may give evidence of agreement varying terms of documents

 

Say there is term of “A delivering 100 bales of cotton B” in a document.  Agreement of payment was in oral as that payment will be made after 3 months of delivery. Evidence of this oral agreement cannot be adduced by A or B, but C can give an evidence if it is affecting his interest.

Section 100- Saving of provisions of Indian Succession Act relating to wills

 

Section saves provision of wills under Indian Succession Act.