Section 101: Evidence of Agreements Varying Terms of Document

Overview

Section 101 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, allows a court to consider spoken agreements (oral evidence) that change what a written document says, but only if the law doesn’t require those spoken agreements to be written down themselves. Essentially, it balances the importance of written contracts with the reality of how people often do business.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: Primarily deals with oral evidence used to modify documentary evidence (written contracts, deeds, etc.).
• Conditions for Admissibility: The key condition is that the agreement altering the document is not itself required by law to be in writing. If a law *requires* a specific agreement to be written (like a sale of property), oral evidence changing it won’t be allowed.
• Relevancy: Oral evidence is relevant only to show a variation, addition, or subtraction from the terms of the document. It can’t be used to disprove the document’s existence entirely.
• Burden of Proof: The party presenting the oral evidence bears the burden of proving that such an agreement existed and that it altered the written document. They must convince the court it’s credible.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges will carefully examine whether the oral agreement is consistent with the written document. If the oral agreement completely contradicts the written document, the court is likely to favour the written document (unless there’s strong evidence of fraud or mistake). The court will assess the credibility of witnesses offering the oral evidence and consider the surrounding circumstances. The section is applied to determine if the oral evidence is admissible at all, and if so, how much weight to give it.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1: A written rental agreement states rent is ₹10,000 per month. The landlord and tenant orally agree to ₹9,000. Since there’s no law requiring rental agreements to be in a specific format, evidence of this oral agreement is admissible to show the actual rent is ₹9,000.
• Example 2: A written contract for the sale of land states the price is ₹50 lakhs. The buyer claims they had an oral agreement with the seller to pay ₹45 lakhs. Since the Sale of Land Act typically requires sale agreements to be in writing, the oral evidence of a lower price is likely not admissible.

Important Provisos / Explanations

The section doesn’t have specific provisos or explanations attached. However, the underlying principle is that the law prioritizes written agreements unless there’s a valid reason (like a legally permissible oral modification) to consider other evidence.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, largely retains the core principle of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There are no significant shifts in this specific provision. The Bill aims for clarity and simplification rather than substantial changes to established evidentiary principles.

Key Takeaways

• Oral evidence can modify written agreements.
• The oral agreement itself must not be legally required to be in writing.
• The party claiming the oral agreement has the burden of proof.
• Courts will scrutinize the consistency between oral and written evidence.