Of The Exclusion Of Oral By Documentary Evidence MCQ Quiz - Objective Question with Answer for Of The Exclusion Of Oral By Documentary Evidence - Download Free PDF

The correct answer is 'Ashutosh Samante (D) by LRs and others Vs. SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi and others'

Key Points

• Ashutosh Samante (D) by LRs and others Vs. SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi and others:
  • In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the genuineness and regularity of documents that are more than 30 years old, is inapplicable when it comes to a will.
  • This presumption typically applies to ancient documents, but the court highlighted that a will requires additional scrutiny and does not benefit from this presumption due to its unique nature and the potential for fraud.

Additional Information

• Ramakrushna Mohapatra and others Vs. Gangadhar Mohapatra and other:
  • This case did not address the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act in relation to wills. It dealt with different legal issues unrelated to the specific point of law in question.
• Lupin Limited Vs. Johnson & Johnson:
  • This case is related to intellectual property and patent disputes. It does not concern the presumption of genuineness of documents under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Rani Purnima Devi & Anr. Vs. Kumar Khagendra Narain Dev & Anr.:
  • This case involved issues of property and succession but did not specifically address the application of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act to wills.

The correct answer is option 3.Key Points

•  Section 96 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons.
• It says when the facts are such that the language used might have been meant to apply to any one, and could not have been meant to apply to more than one, of several persons or things, evidence may be given of facts which show which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to.

The correct option is Only one original needs to be proved.

Key Points

• Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872 deals with the exclusion of oral by documentary evidence which is nothing but the practical application of the best evidence rule.
  • The best evidence rule is one of the cardinal principles of the law of evidence that in all cases the best evidence in possession of the party must always be given.
• Section 91: This Section deals with the evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to the form of document.
• This Section says the terms of a document must be proved by the document itself or by secondary evidence where it is admissible under the Act and not by oral evidence. 
• This Section can be read as follows:
  • When the terms of a contract, or a grant, or any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained. 
    • Explanation 1– This section applies equally to cases in which the contracts, grants or dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document, and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one.
    • Explanation 2 – Where there are more originals than one, one original only needs to be proved.
    • Explanation 3 - The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other than the facts referred to in this section, shall not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact.
• The first part of this Section refers to transactions voluntarily reduced to writing. It does not deal with all kinds of documents/transactions but only those which are dispositive in nature. 
• The second part of this Section refers to transactions which are required by law to be in writing. The documents covered by this part are wider in scope as they may or may not be dispositive in nature.

The correct answer is option 1.Key Points

• The paper provided by 'A' mentioning the purchase of the horse for ₹1,000 does not encompass the verbal warranty of soundness.
• As per the rule of evidence, the written document only covers the terms explicitly mentioned.
• Therefore, 'B' is permitted to prove the verbal warranty separately, making the evidence admissible.

Additional Information

• ​ Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.
• It says when the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:
• Proviso (1). –– Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law.
• Proviso (2). ––The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document.
• Proviso (3). ––The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved.
• Proviso (4). ––The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents.
• Proviso (5). –– Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved:
• Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract.
• Proviso (6). –– Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts.
   

The correct answer is option 1.

Key Points

• Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act provides 6 provisos wherein evidence of any oral statement shall be admitted for contradicting the terms of the contract, grant or other deposition of property or any other matter required by the law in writing have been proved by documentary evidence u/s 91 of Indian Evidence Act.

• Main Rule:

  • When the terms of a contract, grant, or any important document are proven, no one can bring up oral (spoken) agreements or statements to argue against, change, add, or remove from what's already written in the document.

• Exceptions (Provisos - Special Cases):

1.Invalidation of Document:

            If there's something wrong with the document, like fraud, threats, illegal actions, improper execution, lack of ability of someone involved, lack of            consideration, or mistakes in facts or laws, oral evidence of it can be given.

2. Silent Matters:

    If the document doesn't talk about something, and there was a separate spoken agreement about that thing, it can be considered, but only if it doesn't go against what's already written. The formality of the document matters here.

3. Condition Before Obligation:

If there was a spoken agreement that was a condition for making the main obligation of the contract happen, that can be brought up.

4.Changes After the Document:

If there's a separate spoken agreement made after the document was created, and it's about changing or cancelling what's in the document, it can be talked about. However, this doesn't apply if the document must be in writing or if it has been officially registered.

5. Usual Practices:

If there's a common practice or custom about something that is not mentioned in the contract, it can be considered, but only if it doesn't go against what's written in the contract.

6. Understanding Language and Facts:

If there's a need to explain how the language in the document relates to real-life facts, that can be discussed.

• In simple terms, once a document is made and its terms are proven, you can't just say, "Oh, we also agreed on this other thing." But, if there are specific problems with the document, or if there were separate spoken agreements about certain things, those can be considered in some situations.

Additional Information

•  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 or their representatives in interest and not to the person who is a stranger to the instrument.
• Section 92 applies only to the document which is of bilateral nature.

The correct answer is option 1.

Key Points

• Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act provides 6 provisos wherein evidence of any oral statement shall be admitted for contradicting the terms of the contract, grant or other deposition of property or any other matter required by the law in writing have been proved by documentary evidence u/s 91 of Indian Evidence Act.

• Main Rule:

  • When the terms of a contract, grant, or any important document are proven, no one can bring up oral (spoken) agreements or statements to argue against, change, add, or remove from what's already written in the document.

• Exceptions (Provisos - Special Cases):

1.Invalidation of Document:

            If there's something wrong with the document, like fraud, threats, illegal actions, improper execution, lack of ability of someone involved, lack of            consideration, or mistakes in facts or laws, oral evidence of it can be given.

2. Silent Matters:

    If the document doesn't talk about something, and there was a separate spoken agreement about that thing, it can be considered, but only if it doesn't go against what's already written. The formality of the document matters here.

3. Condition Before Obligation:

If there was a spoken agreement that was a condition for making the main obligation of the contract happen, that can be brought up.

4.Changes After the Document:

If there's a separate spoken agreement made after the document was created, and it's about changing or cancelling what's in the document, it can be talked about. However, this doesn't apply if the document must be in writing or if it has been officially registered.

5. Usual Practices:

If there's a common practice or custom about something that is not mentioned in the contract, it can be considered, but only if it doesn't go against what's written in the contract.

6. Understanding Language and Facts:

If there's a need to explain how the language in the document relates to real-life facts, that can be discussed.

• In simple terms, once a document is made and its terms are proven, you can't just say, "Oh, we also agreed on this other thing." But, if there are specific problems with the document, or if there were separate spoken agreements about certain things, those can be considered in some situations.

Additional Information

•  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 or their representatives in interest and not to the person who is a stranger to the instrument.
• Section 92 applies only to the document which is of bilateral nature.

The correct answer is option 2

 Key PointsSection 93 of the Evidence Act provides that when the language used in a document is, on its face, ambiguous or defective, evidence may not be given of facts that would show its meaning or supply its defects. 

Illustrations
(a) A agrees, in writing, to sell a horse to B for “Rs. 1,000 or Rs. 1,500”. Evidence cannot be given to show which price was to be given.
(b) A deed contains blanks. Evidence cannot be given of facts which would show how they were meant to be filled.

The correct answer is Option 2. 

Key Points Section 93: Exclusion of evidence while explaining or amendment of an ambiguous document

• Section 93 of the Indian Evidence Act, deals with the patent ambiguity and no oral evidence is given to remove the patent ambiguity.
• According to Section 93 when the language of the document is ambiguous or defective on its face, the evidence which can show its meaning or supply its effects may not be given.

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.

The ambiguity in the language of a document can be divided into two categories:

• Patent ambiguity
  • A patent ambiguity is when the language of the document or deed is uncertain.
• Latent ambiguity
  • The latent ambiguity is an ambiguity which is not present in the deed but it arises due to extrinsic factors.

Additional Information The distinction between Patent Ambiguity and Latent Ambiguity

The correct answer is Option 2.

Key Points

• Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 says, when the language of a document is plain but in its application to existing facts it is meaningless, evidence can be given to show how it was intended to apply to those facts.
• Evidence to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts is called as Latent ambiguity.
• Oral evidence can be given to remove latent ambiguity.

The correct answer is Contracts, grants and other disposition of property

Key Points

• Section 91 is part of Chapter VI – Of the Exclusion of Oral by Documentary Evidence.
• It states that when the terms of a contract, grant, or other disposition of property have been reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms except the document itself, or secondary evidence where admissible.
• Scope:
  • Applies to:
  • Contracts
  • Grants
  • Other disposition of property
  • (e.g., gift deeds, sale agreements)
• Rule of Best Evidence:
  • The law insists on producing the document itself as the best evidence of its contents.
  • Oral evidence cannot be substituted for written terms.
• Exceptions:
  • Where secondary evidence is allowed (as per Section 65).
  • When the document is not required by law to be written.

Additional Information

• Contracts: Incomplete – Section 91 covers more than just contracts.
• Grants: Too narrow – it also includes contracts and other dispositions.
• Contracts and grants: Still incomplete – "other disposition of property" is explicitly included in the section.

The correct answer is 'Ashutosh Samante (D) by LRs and others Vs. SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi and others'

Key Points

• Ashutosh Samante (D) by LRs and others Vs. SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi and others:
  • In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the genuineness and regularity of documents that are more than 30 years old, is inapplicable when it comes to a will.
  • This presumption typically applies to ancient documents, but the court highlighted that a will requires additional scrutiny and does not benefit from this presumption due to its unique nature and the potential for fraud.

Additional Information

• Ramakrushna Mohapatra and others Vs. Gangadhar Mohapatra and other:
  • This case did not address the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act in relation to wills. It dealt with different legal issues unrelated to the specific point of law in question.
• Lupin Limited Vs. Johnson & Johnson:
  • This case is related to intellectual property and patent disputes. It does not concern the presumption of genuineness of documents under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Rani Purnima Devi & Anr. Vs. Kumar Khagendra Narain Dev & Anr.:
  • This case involved issues of property and succession but did not specifically address the application of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act to wills.

The correct answer is option 3.Key Points

•  Section 96 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons.
• It says when the facts are such that the language used might have been meant to apply to any one, and could not have been meant to apply to more than one, of several persons or things, evidence may be given of facts which show which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to.

The correct option is Only one original needs to be proved.

Key Points

• Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872 deals with the exclusion of oral by documentary evidence which is nothing but the practical application of the best evidence rule.
  • The best evidence rule is one of the cardinal principles of the law of evidence that in all cases the best evidence in possession of the party must always be given.
• Section 91: This Section deals with the evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to the form of document.
• This Section says the terms of a document must be proved by the document itself or by secondary evidence where it is admissible under the Act and not by oral evidence. 
• This Section can be read as follows:
  • When the terms of a contract, or a grant, or any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained. 
    • Explanation 1– This section applies equally to cases in which the contracts, grants or dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document, and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one.
    • Explanation 2 – Where there are more originals than one, one original only needs to be proved.
    • Explanation 3 - The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other than the facts referred to in this section, shall not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact.
• The first part of this Section refers to transactions voluntarily reduced to writing. It does not deal with all kinds of documents/transactions but only those which are dispositive in nature. 
• The second part of this Section refers to transactions which are required by law to be in writing. The documents covered by this part are wider in scope as they may or may not be dispositive in nature.

The correct answer is option 1.Key Points

• The paper provided by 'A' mentioning the purchase of the horse for ₹1,000 does not encompass the verbal warranty of soundness.
• As per the rule of evidence, the written document only covers the terms explicitly mentioned.
• Therefore, 'B' is permitted to prove the verbal warranty separately, making the evidence admissible.

Additional Information

• ​ Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.
• It says when the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:
• Proviso (1). –– Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law.
• Proviso (2). ––The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document.
• Proviso (3). ––The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved.
• Proviso (4). ––The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents.
• Proviso (5). –– Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved:
• Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract.
• Proviso (6). –– Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts.
   

The correct answer is option 1.

Key Points

• Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act provides 6 provisos wherein evidence of any oral statement shall be admitted for contradicting the terms of the contract, grant or other deposition of property or any other matter required by the law in writing have been proved by documentary evidence u/s 91 of Indian Evidence Act.

• Main Rule:

  • When the terms of a contract, grant, or any important document are proven, no one can bring up oral (spoken) agreements or statements to argue against, change, add, or remove from what's already written in the document.

• Exceptions (Provisos - Special Cases):

1.Invalidation of Document:

            If there's something wrong with the document, like fraud, threats, illegal actions, improper execution, lack of ability of someone involved, lack of            consideration, or mistakes in facts or laws, oral evidence of it can be given.

2. Silent Matters:

    If the document doesn't talk about something, and there was a separate spoken agreement about that thing, it can be considered, but only if it doesn't go against what's already written. The formality of the document matters here.

3. Condition Before Obligation:

If there was a spoken agreement that was a condition for making the main obligation of the contract happen, that can be brought up.

4.Changes After the Document:

If there's a separate spoken agreement made after the document was created, and it's about changing or cancelling what's in the document, it can be talked about. However, this doesn't apply if the document must be in writing or if it has been officially registered.

5. Usual Practices:

If there's a common practice or custom about something that is not mentioned in the contract, it can be considered, but only if it doesn't go against what's written in the contract.

6. Understanding Language and Facts:

If there's a need to explain how the language in the document relates to real-life facts, that can be discussed.

• In simple terms, once a document is made and its terms are proven, you can't just say, "Oh, we also agreed on this other thing." But, if there are specific problems with the document, or if there were separate spoken agreements about certain things, those can be considered in some situations.

Additional Information

•  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 or their representatives in interest and not to the person who is a stranger to the instrument.
• Section 92 applies only to the document which is of bilateral nature.