CHAPTER VI

OF EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY

EVIDENCE
SECTIONS 91 -100
Exclusion of Oral by documentary Evidence
The terms of a new contract, Grant or other dispositions of property
has been reduced to the form of a writing no other evidence, as to
the terms of contracts, etc. except the document can be given. (S.91)
When terms of a document has been produced by producing a
document no agreement can be proved to contradict the terms. (S.
92)
But the following things can be proved.
 But the following things can be proved
I
1. Facts invalidating that the deed (fraud etc)
2. contemporaneous or subsequent oral agreement about which the
document is silent and not inconsistent with its terms.
3. Separate enactment condition precedent.
4. when the document is not required by law to be in writing or it is
not registered, subsequent oral agreement yaring that document
may be given.
5. Any usages or custom by which special meaning is attached to a
contract
6. Facts showing in what manner the language relates to the facts.
 Document may be
________________↓________________
↓ ↓
Non -ambiguous in such cases Ambiguous
no oral evidence can be given ↓
against the terms.(S. 94) ↓
_________________________________________________
↓ ↓

Patent is not explained. When the Latent is explained. When the

very language is ambiguous it is patent. Meaning of the deed is clear in itself;
Evidence may not be given to remove But some matter out of the deed makes
the ambiguity or the language (S.93) the deed ambiguous, it is latent.
↓
1. Document in unmeaning in reference to the existing fact, evidence may be given to explain
it.(S.95)
2 when the language of a document may apply to only one of many facts, evidence may be
given as to which it applies.(S.96)
3. when language applies partly to 1 existing fact and partly to another, evidence may be given
as to which it applies.(s.97)
The person who are neither parties to a document nor representative- in- interest can lead
evidence to vary or contradict its terms. They are not bound by its terms(S.99)
S. 91. Some kind of contracts , grants and dispositions of the property can be in writing and
may be orally without any document.
Aman sells horse to Baldev for Rs. 50. No written deed required. Aman take money and hand
over the horse to Baldev.
Baldev agrees to mortgage horse to Aman. For mortgage consideration of Rs. 500/ may take
500/ give possession of horse. No writing is necessary.
Such transaction will be valid without any writing .
On the contrary where law require that transaction should be in writing and registered. Then
written document is necessary. E.g
Judgement, Decree or order of civil court, judgement and order of criminal court.
Disposition of witnesses in civil or criminal court.
Sale or mortgage of immovable property more than 100 is compulsory registerable document.
If compulsory registerable document is registered as required u/s 49 of Registeration Act cannot
be produced and proved.
Shyam Narain Prashad Vs Krishan Prashad AIR 2018 SC 3152
 Principle is : Best Evidence Rule.
Under this section: two things:
1. Only Terms of a contract reduced to writing
2. Document required to be in writing under law– Document inadmissible for want
of registration
• When contract , grant or disposition has been reduced in written though law does
not require same is required to produced either by primary.
• Best evidence about the contents of a document is document itself.
• This rules specifically excludes the oral evidence in such a situation
Bai Hira Devi vs Official Assignee of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 448
Adoption of a person is not required to registered under law. Adoption deed records
factum of adoption .means adoption has taken place. It does not create right. It is no
more than piece of evidence, failure to produce does not bar leading oral evidence.
Tahuri Shal vs Jhujhuwala AIR 1967 SC 109.
 Exceptions
• Exception 1. : The appointment of Public officer should be in writing.
When particular person acted as such officer letter or writing of his
appointment is not required to be proved.
Exception 2: Will admitted to probate in india may be proved by probate.
Probate is defined under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as –  “A copy of will
certified under the seal of the court of competent jurisdiction with a grant of
administration of the estate of the testator”.
Explanation 1.It applies to case where document is one or more documents
Expl. 2. : where more than one original , one is required to be proved.
Expl 3: Statement of fact other than fact mentioned in S. 91 shall not preclude
the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact.
 S. 92
• The principle of this section applies only to such contracts, grants as are
required by law to be reduced to writing.
• When terms of such writing has been proved by primary or secondary evidence
no evidence of oral agreement or statement shall be admitted between the
parties to the document or their representative in interest for the purpose of
Contradicting, varying , adding to ot subtracting from the terms of the document.
In other words , No oral evidence can be given to qualify the terms of the
document.
Other parties are left free to give such evidence .
Bai Hira Devi (Supra) AIR 1958 SC448,Vishwa Nathan v Abdul Wajid AIR 1968 SC 1
Evidence can be given of any oral agreement which does not vary , add, subtract
terms from the document. Veeraswamy vs Narayan AIR 1949 PC 32.
• Illustrations appended to the Section are explanatory of the principles laid down in the
section.
• First three illustrates the main principles and remaining illustrative of the exceptions.
In these exceptional case oral evidence concerning a document is allowed for the purpose
stated in the Provisio( exceptions mentioned as only):
1. Validity of Document (S. 92 Proviso 1) : Validity of document may be questioned.
2. The matters on which document is silent: Proviso 2. Two conditions are
i) Oral agreement should not be inconsistence with the document.. Limited right is with
reference to silent terms.
ii) While permitting evidence must see degree of formality of the document. It document is
extremely formal not allowed even to silent terms.
3. Condition precedent: Pro 3
Condition which may proved by oral evidence should be condition of liability, not the validity of
the document
4. Rescission or modification Pro 4: when document rescinded or modified – oral Evi
5. Usages or customs Pro 5
6. Relation of language to facts Pro 6
• Section 99
• Who may give evidence of agreement varying terms of Document
• evidence by non-parties
• the parties to a document or representatives in interest cannot give evidence of
contemporary oral agreement varying terms of the document.
• This is disability is clearly mentioned in section 92. But this provision is
modified by section 99 to the extent that evidence of such an oral agreement
can be given by third-party if he is affected by it.
• Section 100. Saving of provisions of Indian succession act relating to Wills
AMBIGUOUS DOCUMENTS : Ss 93 to 98
• Ss 93 to 98 :Rules relating to construction of documents;
• Document is ambiguous i.e either its language does not show the clear sense of the document or its
application to the facts creates doubts; how far oral evidence can be allowed to clarify the language or to
remove the defect?
• Section 93 to 98 later on the relevant principles i.e. rules relating to construction of document.
• These sections can be divided into two groups depending upon the type of the fact indicated in the
document. The ambiguities are of two types:
• 1. Patent ambiguity SS 93-94 They don’t make exception but make the transaction null a& Void
• 2. Latent ambiguity SS. 95-97 Exception to rule
PATENT AMBIGUITY( Ss93-94).
A patent ambiguity means that the fact which is apparent on the face of the document. The document is
apparently defective. A person of ordinary intelligence while reading such a document at once observe
defect:
in such cases the principle is that oral evidence is not allowed to remove the effect. The reason for the rule
is that document being clearly and apparently defective, this fact must be or could have been known to
the parties and if they did not care to remove it and it is to lead to remove it when a dispute has arisen.
Section 93 lay down the first principles relating patent ambiguities is that one part of document can be
used to remove the defect in some other part.
• Second patent defect arise when language of the document is quite clear and to
apply correctly to the facts , but an attempt is made that it was to apply to some
other facts, such evidence is not allowed . This principle is laid down in section 94
• Latent defect is defect which is not apparent on the face of the record. The
document makes a plain reading, nothing apparently wrong in its language.An
attempt is made that this does apply to those facts. There is not defect in the
language used in the document, but apparent not error is visible.
• S. 95 when language is plain but is application is meaning less, evidence can be
give how it was intended to.
• Eg : A sell to B by way of deed a house in Calcutta, but he has not house in Calcutta
, but has house in Howrah.
• Evidence can be lead to prove the fact that deed related house at Howarh.
S. 96 another kind of latent ambiguity: when the language of the document is clear
and intended to apply to only one thing or one set of facts but its application to
existing facts is difficult to say to which particular thing it was intended to apply.
• A agrees to sell B a white horse saying my white horse for Rs 1000/. But A has to white
houses. Evidence can be give which of them was meant.
Third principle to ambiguity is in section 97.
On the language of the document partly applies to one set and but party to another set of
facts, but does not applies accurately to either. Evidence can be give to which facts the
document was meant to apply.
A agrees to sell to B “ my land at X in occupation of Y, but A has land at X, but in occupation
of Y, he has land in occupation of Y but it is not at X, evidence can be given of facts showing
which he meant to sell.
S. 98 this section permits evidence to be given of the meaning of words or marks illegible
character or words are not commonly of intelligible character, foreign words , obsolete ,
technical local and provincial expressions , etc
Artist agrees to sell all his models. Evidence can be lead to show whether he meant to sell
all his models or modelling tools
Oral evidence is admissible for the purpose of explaining artistic words and symbols use in
a document.
Canadian General Electric w V Fatda Radio lid AIR 1930 PC 1.