AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 185

Section 92

(A) In paras 43.18 and para 43.20 of the 69th Report, it was recommended that section 92 requires (a) some redrafting so far as bilateral transactions are concerned and (b) a provision to prohibit oral evidence to vary unilateral transactions are concerned, must be inserted.

In the main part of section 92, it was recommended, that it be split up as follows into section 92(1)(a) and (b) in regard to documents 'between parties', clause (a) referring to contract, grant or other disposition of property and clause (b) referring to documents in which the matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document is recorded. section 92(2) is to be added to cover matters required to be reduced to the form of a document and not constituting a transaction between two or more parties'.

We recommend the format proposed in para 43.18 of the 69th Report regarding the amendment in the opening paragraph of section 92. We further recommend that for exclusion of oral evidence in the case of certain unilateral documents, besides the format of provision given in para 43.20 of the 69th report, the following words should be added "such as confessions of the accused, statements of witnesses, court proceedings other than judgments, decrees or orders, resolution of a company required to be in writing". But instead of bringing it in subsection (2) of section 92 as proposed in the 69th report (para 43.20), we recommend that this should be brought out in a new section 92A.

We recommend the following draft of amendment in the opening paragraph of section 92 and insertion of a new section 92A :-

"92 When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property as is referred to in section 91 or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document and constituting a transaction between two or more parties, have been proved according to section 91, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted-

(a) as between the parties to any such contract, grant or other disposition of property or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, the terms of the document, or

(b) as between the parties to such transaction, or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from the terms of the document in which the matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document is recorded, as the case may be.

92A. Exclusion of oral evidence in the case of certain unilateral documents.- When any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, and not constituting a transaction between parties, such as a confession of an accused, the statement of a witness, a court proceeding (other than judgments, decree or order), a resolution of a company required to be in writing, has been so reduced to writing and proved according to section 91, no evidence of any oral statement shall be admitted for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from the contents of the document."

(B) We shall next deal with the six provisos to section 92. The 69th Report divides the discussion here into (a) the first five provisos and (b) the sixth proviso.

Proviso (1): We do not suggest any amendment in proviso (1).

roviso (2): We do not propose any amendment to proviso (2).

Proviso (3): We do not propose any amendment to proviso (3).

Proviso (4): We do not propose any amendment to this proviso.

Proviso (5): We do not propose any amendment to proviso (5).

Proviso (6): After considering all aspects relating to proviso (6), we are also of the view that the proviso be left as it is.



Review of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys