Straightforward Documents and Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Introduction:

Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states about the exclusion of oral agreement evidence when the terms of any contract, grant, or disposition of a party or any other matter are required by law to be produced in form of a document and has been proved according to the provision 91 of Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence would be excluded to contradict, vary, adding to or subtracting to terms of such contract. Section 91 and Section 92 are generally read together, while section 91 lays down that when the terms of the contract have been reduced to writing the writing itself should be produced and no other evidence would be admissible, section 92 lays down that when the terms of the contract, grant, or disposition of party or any other matter required by law to be reduced in writing have been proved by filing the document (as stated in Section 91), the parties to contract or their legal representatives cannot be allowed to lead oral evidence to contradict, vary, adding to or subtracting from the contract. Section 92 excludes the parties to the document and their representatives-in-interest from providing oral evidence concerning the contents of the document. Other parties are free to provide such evidence. The provisions of Section 92 come under operation after the document has been produced to prove its terms under Section 91.

There are six exceptions to the general rule of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

1. No one would be debarred from proving a fact that will invalidate the contract such as contracts created by fraud or undue influence
2. When there exists a prior or contemporaneous oral agreement about a matter on which such contract or document is silent, proof of it could be given only when such oral agreement is not inconsistent with the terms of the contract or document.
3. If a separate oral agreement exists which states that no effect would be taken to terms of the written contract unless a condition precedent has been fulfilled, oral evidence is admissible.
4. Evidence could be provided to prove any subsequent oral agreement rescinding or altering the terms of all written contracts except the contracts which are required by law to be in writing or which have been registered.
5. Oral evidence can be given when any usage or customs by which incidents not mentioned in the contract are usually annexed to the contract needs to be proved
6. Oral evidence is admissible of surrounding circumstances to ascertain the real intention of the parties. Any fact may be proved which shows in that manner the language of the document is related to the existing facts.

The sixth exception to section 92 makes it clear that only when a document is ambiguous and there is more than one meaning of the language used in the document, sixth provision should be looked into which gives permission to the court to take into consideration the conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances in order to ascertain the real meaning of the document. The court could then look into the provision of Section 92 and take into consideration the conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances in order to ascertain the real meaning of the document. If a document is unambiguous or straightforward extrinsic evidence is not allowed because Section 92 provides that the real intention of the parties to the document should be gathered from the language used in the document.

Scope

Section 92 comes into operation to exclude evidence of any oral agreement or statement, to contradict, vary, adding to, or subtracting to terms of any contract, and applies to documents that can be described as dispositive and are bilateral. The subject matter of this section is to decide whether or not the terms of the document could be varied by proof of an oral agreement. Suppose A borrows Rs. 600 from B and executes a promotion. The promotion rate of interest is fixed at 2 percent per month. The promotion is filed and proved according to Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Now, A wants to lead evidence to effect that the rate of interest between two parties was 1 percent per month and not 2 percent per month. This evidence could not be made admissible according to Section 92 as it would mean contradicting the terms of a contract that has been already been proved according to the procedure. It is described as the best evidence rule which means that the best evidence about the contents of the document is the document itself and a similar principle is enunciated with the help of Section 91 and Section 92 of the Evidence Act. The evidence that is to be excluded from the purview of Section 92 should be the evidence affecting the terms of the contract. If the oral evidence does not affect the terms of a contract, it could be adduced even though the document has been proved.

Case Brief: Mangala Waman Karandikar v. Prakash Damodar Ranade

The Supreme Court bench consisting of Chief Justice NV Ramanna, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Aniruddha Bose held that provision 6 of Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would not be applicable if the document is unambiguous or straightforward and there is no difficulty in construing it. when the terms of the document suffer from an ambiguity then provision 6 could be resorted for.

Facts:

The appellant after her husband’s demise continued running a business of stationery in name of ‘Karandikar Brothers’ and when she was unable to run her business, she had entered into an agreement with Respondent which kept on being duly extended. After few years she decided to restart the business and thereby requested the Respondent to vacate the suit premises. The Respondent objected to the request of the Appellant and replied to the notice claiming that the sale of the business was incidental rather the contract was a rent agreement. This agitated the Appellant and she filed a civil suit before the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Pune. The trial Court decreed in the favour of the appellant and held that the agreement between the parties was to create a transaction for the sale of business rather than to rent the premises to Respondent. Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, the Respondent filed an appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Pune which was accordingly dismissed. After the dismissal, the Respondent filed a second appeal before the High Court of Bombay, which overturned the Trial Court’s decision and held that the Respondent had entered into a license agreement covered under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act. Moreover, the High Court held that Trial Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the case and the case should have been gone to Small Causes Court which had jurisdiction to try cases on the Bombay Rent Act. Aggrieved by the order of The High Court of Bombay, Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Contention:

The counsel for Appellant contended that High Court’s order made an error in appreciating the language of the contract, which pointed to the intention of the parties to create a license for continuing existing business, which was run by the appellant’s late husband. While the Respondent’s counsel stated that there was extrinsic evidence that demonstrated that the agreement between the two parties was a license to use shop covered under the Bombay Rent Act.

Judgment:

The Apex Court held that adopting a contrary view would render Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 indolent and increase the ambit of provision 6 in the section beyond the section itself. The Bend highlighted that it was clear in the contract that it mandated continuation of business in the name of ‘Karandikar Brothers’ by paying monies of Rs 90 per month and remarked that when the parties have accepted the agreement, the respondent could not adduce contrary extrinsic parol evidence unless there was ambiguity in the language of the contract. The interpretation made by the High Court violated the fundamentals of legal interpretation of Section 92 which specifically prohibits the oral evidence which would contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from its terms. The Bench, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court of Bombay and upheld that in a document, language could have more than one meaning and it is the responsibility of the Courts to decipher the meaning of words used in a contract.

Case Laws

Raj Kumar Rajindra Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh [AIR 1990 SC 1833]

It was held by the Apex Court that if the terms of the documents are unambiguous, extrinsic aid to ascertain the true intention of parties is inadmissible because Section 92 mandates that in such cases the intention must be gathered from the language employed in the document. Only if the knowledge employed given admits a variety of meanings, the sixth provision to the section must be invoked which permits the tendering of evidence extrinsic evidence as to acts, conduct, and surrounding circumstances. In these cases, the subsequent conduct of the parties provides the evidence to ascertain the real intention of the parties and to remove the ambiguity in the language of the contract.

Gurdial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja [AIR 2002 SC 1003]

The question before the court was as to the validity of the lease deed and as to whether occupants were tenant or sub-tenant. Occupants could have raised the plea that the transaction between owner and tenant is not what it appears to be just by reading the lease deed. They however neither raised the plea nor adduced other evidence for contradicting, varying, adding, or subtracting the terms of the deed. They were not parties to the lease deed. In these circumstances, Section 91 and Section 92 would not be attracted. 

Examples

According to provision 6 of Section 92, the intention of the parties must be gathered from the language of the document as explained by extrinsic evidence. No evidence of any intention inconsistent with the plain meaning of words will be admitted for the object of provision 6 of Section 92 is not to vary the language used, but only to explain the clause in which the words used by the parties to deed.

• A makes a grant to B in respect of some property situated in village F and A’s cultivation. B files a suit for the possession of that land. The document embodying the grant is filed and proved. B will be allowed to prove by oral evidence as to what land was in possession of A at the time of the grant.
• A makes a will of his property to children and does not name them. Evidence maybe given to prove who are his children.
• Certain premises were leased including the yard, the length and the breadth of the yard were given in the lease. There was a cellular under the yard A question arises whether the cellar was included in the lease or not. The oral evidence is admissible to prove that at the time of the lease cellar was in occupancy of another tenant and therefore it could not have been intended by the parties that it should be included by the lease in question.

Conclusion

Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act relies on the rationale that documentary evidence is the best evidence in itself and oral evidence would be excluded if such statements contradict, vary, add to or subtract the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court in the recent cases reiterated the scope and relevance of Section 92 in particular the provision 6 of Section 92. Provision 6 of Section 92 is mainly to ascertain the true intention of parties in making the contract in case the terms are ambiguous but when no ambiguity is present, no extrinsic parol evidence could be admitted in the Courts of Law.