A gives B a receipt for money paid by B, Oral Evidence is offered for the payment. Is it admissible?

Facts of the Case

‘A’ receives money from B and provides B with a receipt acknowledging the payment.

During a subsequent dispute regarding the payment, oral evidence is offered by B to prove that he made the payment to A.

The legal question arises whether oral evidence can be admitted to prove the contents of the receipt or payment when a written receipt exists.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether oral evidence is admissible to prove the payment acknowledged in a written receipt?
2. Whether the receipt itself is considered primary evidence under Indian law?
3. Whether oral evidence can contradict, add to, or explain a written document?

Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgments

A. Primary and Secondary Evidence – Sections 62 & 63, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Section 62: The original document is the primary evidence.
• Section 63: Secondary evidence (e.g., oral evidence, copies) is admissible only if the original cannot be produced for a valid reason.

Implication:

• The receipt is primary evidence of the payment.
• Oral evidence cannot be used to contradict or prove the contents of a written receipt if the original is available.

B. Oral Evidence and the Rule of Documentary Evidence – Section 91

• Section 91: When the terms of a contract or agreement have been reduced to writing, no oral evidence can be admitted to prove a previous or contemporaneous agreement that contradicts the written document.
• Oral evidence may be used only to:
  1. Prove execution of the document, or
  2. Explain ambiguities in the document, but cannot vary or add to its terms.

C. Judicial Interpretation

1. Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India – Oral evidence cannot contradict or vary the terms of an unambiguous written document.
2. State Bank of India v. S.P. Chaurasiya – A receipt as a written acknowledgment is primary evidence, and oral evidence cannot prove a different transaction.

Key Principle:

• Oral evidence to prove payment is inadmissible if the receipt exists, except to prove execution, genuineness, or correction of clerical errors.

D. Application

• In this case, B cannot rely on oral evidence to prove payment in a manner contradicting the receipt.
• If the original receipt is produced, it is conclusive evidence of the payment.
• Oral evidence may only be allowed to prove the authenticity of the signature or clarify ambiguities, not to establish additional terms or contradict the receipt.

Possible Judgment

The Court is likely to hold that:

1. The written receipt provided by A is primary evidence of the payment.
2. Oral evidence offered by B to prove the payment is inadmissible to contradict or add to the receipt, in accordance with Sections 62, 63, and 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
3. Oral evidence may be admitted only to prove execution or authenticity of the receipt, or to explain any ambiguity in the document.
4. The court will rely on the written receipt as conclusive evidence of the payment.

Final Decision

Oral evidence is not admissible to prove the payment acknowledged in a written receipt when the original receipt exists. The receipt itself is primary evidence, and the court will rely on it in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

About lawgnan

If you want to master Indian Evidence Law and easily understand complex concepts like admissibility of oral evidence, documentary proof, and rules governing written receipts, visit Lawgana.in today. Our platform provides accurate legal explanations, case analyses, and exam-ready notes for students, lawyers, and aspirants preparing for competitive exams. Stay updated with simplified interpretations of Sections 62, 63, and 91 of the Indian Evidence Act. Whether you’re researching for court matters or academic purposes, Lawgana.in delivers trusted legal insights. Click the link now to explore more detailed case studies crafted for effortless understanding and high-quality learning.