Exclusion of Oral by Documentary Evidence Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Indian Evidence Act lays down a complete and structured framework for the production and proof of evidence in judicial proceedings. One of the most important principles under this law is the exclusion of oral evidence when documentary evidence exists, found mainly under Sections 91 and 92. These provisions protect the integrity of written documents and prevent parties from altering written terms through oral statements. In essence, once a document has been deliberately created as the final record of a transaction, oral evidence cannot override, modify, or contradict it. This principle enhances certainty, reduces disputes, and strengthens the reliability of legal transactions. Understanding these provisions is essential for law students, litigants, and legal practitioners, as they frequently appear in both civil and criminal cases.
Meaning and Scope of Section 91: Best Evidence Rule
Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act embodies the Best Evidence Rule, which means that when a transaction is recorded in writing, the document itself must be produced as evidence. Oral evidence about the content of the document is not acceptable. This section applies to contracts, grants, wills, and any transaction that is required by law to be in writing. The rationale is simple: written documents are more reliable than oral explanations, which may be inaccurate or self-serving.
For example, if two parties sign a written contract about the sale of property, neither party can later claim orally that the terms were different. The only acceptable evidence is the written agreement. Section 91 does not say oral evidence cannot be given at all; rather, it states that oral evidence cannot substitute for the document itself. Exceptions exist when the original document is lost or destroyed, in which case secondary evidence may be allowed under Sections 63 and 65, but even then, the oral version of the contents is generally unacceptable.
Section 92: Oral Evidence Cannot Contradict Written Documents
While Section 91 focuses on excluding oral evidence about the contents of a written document, Section 92 goes a step further: once the terms have been proved, no oral evidence can be admitted to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the written terms. This ensures that written agreements remain stable, and parties cannot manipulate them through later oral claims.
Section 92 applies only between the parties to the document or their representatives. A third party may still produce oral evidence under certain circumstances. The principle promotes finality and certainty in written instruments. Without this rule, contracts would lose their credibility, as parties could easily allege new terms orally. Courts, therefore, strictly enforce the bar under Section 92 to maintain trust in written dealings.
Exceptions Under Section 92: When Oral Evidence is Allowed
While Section 92 excludes oral evidence, the law also recognizes that in certain situations, oral evidence must be permitted to achieve justice. These exceptions ensure that the rule does not become rigid or oppressive. The main exceptions include:
1. Fraud, Intimidation, Illegality, or Mistake (Proviso 1)
If a document was obtained by fraud, coercion, or contains a mistake, oral evidence may be produced to challenge the validity of the document.
2. Separate Oral Agreement (Proviso 2)
Oral evidence is allowed to prove a separate agreement on matters not inconsistent with the written terms.
3. Condition Precedent (Proviso 3)
If parties orally agree that the written agreement would become effective only upon happening of a condition, oral evidence is permitted to prove that condition.
4. Subsequent Oral Modification (Proviso 4)
Parties may prove that they later modified or cancelled the written agreement orally, unless written modification was mandatory by law.
5. Usage or Custom (Proviso 5)
Oral evidence may be allowed to show a trade or local custom that supplements the document.
6. Matters Immaterial to the Document (Proviso 6)
Oral evidence is admissible to prove matters that the document does not intend to cover.
These provisos balance strict written-record requirements with fairness and practical reality.
Relevance of the Principle in Modern Evidence Law
The exclusion of oral by documentary evidence is crucial in modern legal practice. With the increasing use of electronic communications and digital documentation, the principle strengthens authenticity and reduces disputes over transactions. Courts now also apply Sections 91 and 92 to electronic records, which qualify as documents under Sections 3 and 65B of the Evidence Act.
This principle is especially important in:
- Property disputes
- Commercial contracts
- Loan and mortgage agreements
- Wills and settlements
- Government records and public documents
By preventing parties from contradicting written terms through oral claims, the Act ensures consistency and predictability in legal dealings.
Practical Illustration
Consider a scenario where A sells land to B for ₹20 lakh, and both parties sign a written sale agreement specifying the price and conditions. Later, A claims orally that B had agreed to pay an additional ₹5 lakh as an informal understanding. Under Section 92, A’s oral statement cannot be admitted because it contradicts the written terms. The written agreement is the final and conclusive evidence of the transaction.
Similarly, if B later claims orally that the land was sold including a farmhouse, but the document states only land, the court will rely solely on the written terms. This prevents manipulation, dishonesty, and uncertainty.
Mnemonic to Remember the Rule – “D-O-C-U-M-E-N-T”
D – Document is primary evidence (Section 91)
O – Oral evidence cannot contradict written terms (Section 92)
C – Conditions precedent may be proved orally
U – Usage and custom are exceptions
M – Mistake, fraud, coercion allow oral evidence
E – Evidence of subsequent modification allowed
N – Not inconsistent oral agreements are allowed
T – Terms once written cannot be varied by oral claims
“DOCUMENT: Written stays written unless exceptional.”
About lawgnan
Deepen your understanding of the Exclusion of Oral by Documentary Evidence under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act with our detailed analysis on Lawgana.in. Learn how written documents take precedence, how oral claims are restricted, and when exceptions apply, such as fraud, mistake, custom, or subsequent oral agreements. Whether you’re a law student, practitioner, or preparing for judiciary exams, this structured explanation, illustrations, and mnemonic “DOCUMENT” will strengthen your conceptual clarity. Visit Lawgana.in to explore more simplified legal notes, case-based explanations, and exam-focused content.
