Section 95 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

Source: Patna High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Patna High Court in the matter of Radhe Yadav v. Prabhas Yadav has held that oral evidence is acceptable to verify the contents of documents when plot number in sale deed is in question.

What was the Background of the Radhe Yadav v. Prabhas Yadav Case?

• In this case, the petitioner filed a case for the declaration of title of the land and for accepting oral evidence as the plot number was misdescribed in the deed and was a mistake of fact.
• The petitioner was disallowed by the Munsif Court to cross examine the defendant based on the boundary of plot numbers 659 and 654 of the land in suit.
• It was stated that as per section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) oral evidence cannot be accepted to alter the contents of the document.
• A review petition was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the trial court.
• Later, the petitioner in the present case filed a civil miscellaneous petition in the Patna High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court observed and made a wider interpretation of section 91 and section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The court stated that section 91 and section 92 of IEA are based on “the best evidence rule”.
• It was stated that when superior evidence is available then inferior evidence cannot be produced to contradict the same.
• It was observed by the court that in the present case section 91 of the IEA cannot be applied because as per section 92 of the IEA, which allows any fact can be produced to invalidate the document produced by fraud, mistake subject to, the mistake should be genuine and accidental.
• It was observed that section 91 and section 92 are supplementary to each other.
• It was held that oral evidence can be produced to prove any misdescriptions in the sale deed.

What is Section 95 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)?

• Section 95 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) states that if the document's terms have been proved in Section 94 of BSA, no other evidence is to be produced except in certain conditions.
  • This provision was earlier covered under Section 92 of the IEA.
• 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.

What are the Landmark Judgements?

• Jahuri Sah & Ors. v. Dwarka Prasad Jhunjhunwala & Ors (1967): In this case the Supreme court held that to prove the contents of adoption deed oral evidence is admissible.
• M. D. Gopalaiah v. Smt. Usha Priyadarshini and Ors (2002): In this case it was held that when there is an error in the digits mentioned in a document then oral evidence is admissible.
• Chimanram Motilal v. Divnchand Govidram (1932): In this case it was held that when there is a mistake in the contents of the document then to prove them oral evidence is admissible.