Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Documentary Evidence
By
Subodh Asthana
-
July 10, 2019
0
Share on Facebook
Tweet on Twitter
Table of Contents
Synopsis
Oral and Documentary Evidence
o Oral Evidence
o Documentary Evidence
o Difference between Oral Evidence and Documentary Evidence
Exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence
o Evidence reduced in the form of document
The principle behind section 91
Rules to be followed for the exclusion of oral evidence by documentary
evidence
Any matter required to be in writing by law
Exceptions to Section 91
Exception 1: Appointment of a public officer by the way of writing
Exception 2: When probate has been obtained on the basis of a will
Explanations under Section 91
o Evidence of oral agreement excluded
Proviso(1): The facts which invalidate the document
Proviso(2): Separate oral arguments
Proviso (3): Separate Oral Argument as a condition precedent
Proviso (4): Distinct oral agreement made subsequently to renew or
modify the contract
Proviso (5): Any usage or customs by which incidents not mentioned in
any contract are usually annexed to contract
Proviso(6): Extrinsic evidence of surrounding circumstances
o Inter-relation between section 91 and 92
o Latent and Patent Ambiguity
Test of difference
The distinction between Patent Ambiguity and Latent Ambiguity
Extrinsic Evidence to explain Ambiguity in a document
o When extrinsic evidence cannot be given
Section 94: In the application of document to existing facts, the
application against it to be excluded
o When extrinsic evidence can be given
Section 95: Evidence allowed to be given when the document is plain in
itself
Section 96: Evidence allowed when the application of the language which
is meant to apply on only one, applies to several persons
Section 97: When on the application of the language of two or more facts
neither of them applies correctly, then evidence to be admitted
Section 98: Evidence given to show the meaning of illegible characters
o Who may give evidence of agreement varying terms of the document
o Provisions of Indian Succession Acts related to wills to be excluded
Conclusion
Reference
Synopsis
Oral Evidence
The evidence which is confined to the words spoken by mouth is the oral
evidence. If oral evidence is worthy of credit, it is sufficient to prove a fact or a
title without any documentary evidence. The provisions related to oral evidence
are given under Chapter IV of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Oral evidence
of a witness can be considered doubtful if it is in contradiction with the previous
statement.
Click Here
Documentary Evidence
The provisions related to the documentary evidence are provided
under Chapter-V of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 3 of the Act
defines the term “document”. Any matter which is expressed or described on
any substance by means of letters, figures or remarks or by more than one
means and which can be used for recording the matter is considered as a
“document”.
Generally, the most common document which we have to deal with is described
by letters. The documents are written in any language of communication such
as Hindi, English, Urdu etc.
The documents produced before the court as evidence are the documentary
evidence and there must primary or secondary evidence to prove the contents
of the documents. Primary evidence has been defined under section 62 of the
Indian Evidence Act and it means the original document when itself produced
before the court for the inspection.
The secondary evidence has been defined under section 63 of the Act. The
secondary evidence is the certified copy of the evidence or copy of original
documents. Secondary evidence also includes the oral accounts given by a
person about the contents of the document who has himself seen it.
S.No
Oral Evidence Documentary Evidence
.
Illustration
A sells his Dog for Rs. 100 to B: In this case no written deed is compulsory.
B wants to mortgage the dog for Rs. 100 to C: No written deed is mandatory.
B pays Rs. 100 to C and takes back the possession of the dog.
But, there are many documents and matters of the court which are considered
mandatory by the law to be in writing and registered e.g., judgement and
decrees, the deposition of witnesses, when an accused person is examined etc.
Orally, many contracts, grants and other depositions can be affected but
reducing the terms of the contract on which the party agrees in a document is
considered to be the best evidence for the terms of that contract. When reduced
to documents, it acts as the best evidence. Even if the document is lost or in
adversary possession secondary evidence as described under section 65 can
be produced before the court.
Section 91 of the Evidence Act, lays down the provision for the situation when
the terms of the contract, grant or depositions of properties have been reduced
in the document even though it is required under law to be reduced into the
document. In this condition, if the proof is required, the document itself is
required to be produced or if the secondary evidence is admissible then the
secondary evidence can be used.
Rules to be followed for the exclusion of oral evidence by
documentary evidence
The admission of the oral evidence for proving the contents of a document is
excluded under section 91 except where the secondary evidence is considered
admissible. The oral evidence is also excluded under section 92 for contradicting
the terms of a contract where the deed is proved. So, the rules laid down by
these sections can be considered as an exclusive rule as held in the case
of Raja Ram Jaiswal v. Ganesh Prasad.
According to the rule laid down under section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, no
evidence can be produced before the court to prove the statement when the
terms of a contract are reduced in writing except the document itself and under
certain circumstances, the secondary evidence.
The oral evidence excluded under section 91 in case of a deed only when the
deed contains the terms of a contract or some property is disposed of through it
or the law binds the contents of the document to be in writing. As held in the
case of Tahuri Shal v. Jhunjhunwala, a law does not make the adoption to
be in writing mandatory. The deed of adoption is just a record of the fact
adoption has taken place. No rights are created by it. It is no more than a piece
of evidence and when a party fails to produce it, the law does not bar him from
producing oral evidence.
Exceptions to Section 91
Exception 1: Appointment of a public officer by the way of writing
As per the general rule, to prove the content of a writing, the writing itself is
required to be produced before the court and in case of its absence, secondary
evidence may be given. But, there is an exception to this rule. When a public
officer is appointed and the appointment is required to be made in writing and if
it is shown before the court that some person has acted as the officer by whom
the person has been appointed, then the writing by which he has been
appointed needs not to be proved.
Illustration
A question arises whether A is a judge of the High Court, then the warrant of
appointment is not required to be proved. The fact that he is working as a judge
of the High Court will be proved.
The fact that a person is working in the due capacity of his office is also
evidence of that person’s appointment in the office.
Another exception of the general rule of the writing to be produced itself is that
when on the basis of will probate has been obtained and if later, the question
arises on the existence of that will, the original will is not required to be
produced before the court.
This exception requires to prove the contents of the will by which the probate is
granted. The term “probate” stands for the copy of a certificate with the seal of
the court granting administration to the estate of the testator.
The probate copy of the will is secondary evidence of the contents of the
original will in a strict sense but it is ranked as primary evidence
Explanations under Section 91
Another explanation laid down under section 91 is that when there is more than
one original document, then only one of them is required to be presented before
the court.
Section 92 comes into operation when the documents have been submitted
under section 91 for the purpose of contradicting, varying, addition or any
modification from its terms.
Section 92 of the Act clarifies itself that only such oral arguments are excluded
which contradicts the terms of contract, deposition or any other matter required
to be in writing. If such a document is not a contract, grant or deposition of
property, then the oral evidence can be included to vary its content.
Section 92 is applicable only to the parties to the instrument and not to the
person who is a stranger to the instrument. In the case of Ram Janaki Raman
v. State, it was held by the court that the bar laid down by section 92 of the
Act was not applicable under the Criminal proceeding.
If a fact will invalidate the contact then no man is debarred from proving that
fact. According to the laws of contract, any contract which is created by fraud or
undue influence, it is not enforceable and considered invalid. So, such facts are
easy to prove in the circumstances when the contract has been reduced into
written form.
The term separate oral arguments in this context refer to the oral agreements
made before entering into the documents. The contemporaneous or prior oral
agreements are referred to under Proviso (2) of section 92.
When there is a prior oral agreement on a matter about which the document is
silent, then it can be proved only when such terms of oral agreements are not in
contradiction with the terms of the contract.
So, as held in the case of Bal Ram v. Ramesh Chandra, the requirements of
this proviso are:
The situation when an oral agreement is to the effect that it will not be effective
or will not be enforced unless a condition precedent is fulfilled or unless a
certain event takes place, the oral agreements are admissible in this case to
show that as such condition has not been performed, the contract was not
enforceable.
To prove any subsequent oral agreement leading to alteration of terms of all the
written contracts except to the contracts which are required to be in writing by
law evidence can be given.
Parol evidence of usage and customs are always admissible. When the object is
to make intelligible before the court about the meaning in which the parties
have used a parol evidence may be given to prove any local custom of the
general application, so that it may be applied to the subject matter of the
contract and bind the parties to the written contract unless such usage or
custom is inconsistent with the writing.
After a document has been produced to prove its terms under section 91, then
the provisions of section 92 play for excluding evidence of any oral agreement
or statement for the purpose of contradicting, varying, addition or subtraction
from its terms.
Even though the two sections are supplementary to each other, both sections
differ about some of the opinions in particular. Section 91 deals with the
documents whether or not they are having the purpose to dispose off the rights
or not but section 92 is applicable to the documents which are dispositive in
nature.
Test of difference
The test to find the difference that whether the ambiguity is a patent ambiguity
or a latent ambiguity is to put the document in the hands of an ordinary
intelligent educated person.
S.No
Patent Ambiguity Latent Ambiguity
.
Oral evidence is not allowed for the To remove latent ambiguity, oral
3.
removal of patent ambiguity. evidence is allowed.
The rule on which the patent Giving oral evidence in case of latent
ambiguity is based is that the ambiguity is based on the principle the
4.
patent ambiguity makes the latent ambiguity does not make a
document useless. document useless.
Illustration
An agreement is made between A and B that A will sell his crops for Rs. 1000 or
2000. The evidence cannot be given that which price was to be given.
In the case of Keshav Lal v. Lal Bhai T. Mills Ltd., it was held by the
Supreme Court that it would not be open for the parties or the court to remove
the ambiguity or vagueness by relying upon the extrinsic evidence.
According to section 94, when the language in the document is simple and
plain itself and it applies accurately to the existing facts, the evidence to show
that it was not meant to apply to such facts may not be given.
When there is neither a patent ambiguity nor a latent ambiguity then the
evidence cannot be given to contradict this.
In the case of General Court Marshal v. Col. Anil Tej Singh Dhaliwal it was
held by the Supreme Court that section 94 applies only when the execution of
the document is admitted before the court and there are no vitiating
circumstances against it.
Image Source: https://bit.ly/30mzVyI
Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with latent ambiguity and oral
evidence can be given for removing latent ambiguity. When the language which
has been used in the document is simple and plain but it is not in the meaning
to existing facts due to the mistakes in the descriptive evidence and such
mistake can be shown that it was used in a peculiar sense.
Illustration
Illustration
A agrees to sell his white cow to B for Rs. 2000 and in the deed he has
mentioned “my white cow”. A has two white cows. Evidence can be given to
prove that which white cow he meant in that deed.
Illustration
X sells his land to Y stating “My land at A in the occupation of B”. X had land at
A but it is not in occupation of B and X has land which is in the occupation of B
but it is not at A. Then X can present evidence before the court that which land
he actually wants to sell.
Illustration
A sells his artwork to B stating “all my mods”. Here, what A meant by the term
“mods” can be clarified by the way of admission of evidence.
As section 92 of the Act excludes the party to the contract from producing the
document but it does not exclude those who are the parties to contract. So,
under this section i.e., section 99 the same provision is being repeated.
Conclusion
Chapter VI of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the provisions related to the
exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence. There are certain
circumstances when the oral evidence cannot be admitted before the court for
the support of documentary and there are also instances when the oral evidence
is admissible. All the provisions have to be dealt with according to this chapter.
The provisions related to the will under the Indian Succession Act is excluded
from these provisions.
Reference
1. Lal Batul, The Law of Evidence, 22nd Edition (2018), Central Law Agency.
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.