[S.92 Evidence Act] Oral Evidence Admissible To Prove Contents Of Document Amid Claims Of Misdescription Of Plot Number In Sale Deed: Patna HC

The Patna High Court held that oral evidence could be admissible to prove the contents of a document under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act if there is a claim about the misdescription of plot number in a sale deed.

Justice Arun Kumar Jha was considering the petitioner's case against the order of Munsif Court, which did not permit the petitioner/plaintiff to cross-examine the respondent/defendant on the point of boundary contained in the sale deed.

The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title on the suit land. The Munsif Court disallowed the petitioner from cross-examining the respondent/defendant regarding the boundary of Plot Nos. 659 and 654 on the ground that oral evidence cannot be given to change or alter the contents of a document under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The High Court examined the provisions of Sections 91 & 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 91 provides that the terms of a document must be proved by either the document itself or by secondary evidence. Section 92 provides that when the terms of the document have been proved under Section 91, no oral evidence can be admitted to disprove the terms of the document, except under certain conditions.

The Court noted that these provisions are supplementing to each other and that “Section 91 applies to all documents, whether they purport to dispose of rights or not, whereas Section 92 applies to documents which can be described as disposing of right.”

It stated that these provisions are based on the 'best evidence rule' which means that when superior evidence is available, inferior evidence cannot be considered. When a transaction has been reduced to writing, it becomes the exclusive evidence and therefore external evidence cannot be produced to contradict or vary the terms of the document.

“The provisions of the aforesaid two sections are based on “best evidence rule” that when a transaction has been reduced to writing, it becomes the exclusive memorial thereof, and no external evidence is admissible either to prove independently the transaction or to contradict vary, add to or subtract from, the terms of the documents, though the content of the document may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence. The law always requires that only the best evidence be laid and hence to admit inferior evidence when the law requires superior would be to nullify the law” the court stated.

While the court noted that the contents of a document in a sale deed cannot be proved under Section 91, proviso (1) of Section 92 allows any fact to be proved which would invalidate any document due to factors such as fraud, intimidation, mistake in fact or law, etc. It noted that “The mistake contemplated under the Proviso must be genuine and accidental mistakes like misdescription of property.”

It held oral evidence can be admissible under Section 92(1) in case of any allegations about the misdescription of plot number in the sale deed.

In the present case, the first vendor had admitted that there was a mistake in the plot number (khersa) and subsequently got a rectification deed which the Court noted “is in tune with the case of the petitioner about misdescription of the property regarding mentioning of wrong plot number.”

The Court held that the petitioner could be allowed to present oral evidence to prove that the plot number was incorrect. To determine such incorrectness, the petitioner could cross-examine the respondent/defendant. It held that such oral evidence would not be in violation of Sections 91 and 92.

“When there is allegation about misdescription of khesra number in the sale deed, oral evidence as to its contents is admissible. Further, if there is any misdescription of the property or the khesra number has been wrongly mentioned, in my view, the same would come under the purview of Proviso (1) of Section 92 of the Act,” the Court said.

It thus set aside the order of the Munsiff court in rejecting the petitioner's request to cross-examine the respondent/defendant.

Case title: Radhe Yadav vs. Prabhas Yadav, C.Misc. No.1076 of 2017

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 50

Click Here To Read/Download Order