Evidence Act – Proviso 6 To Section 92 Will Not Apply If The Document Is Straightforward With No Ambiguity
Case: Mangala Waman Karandikar (D) TR. LRS vs.Prakash Damodar Ranad
Coram: CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose
Case No: [CA No. 10827 of 2010]
Court Observation: “It is manifest from these two sections that it is only in cases where the terms of the document leave the question in doubt, then resort could be had to the proviso. But when a document is a straightforward one and presents no difficulty in construing it, the proviso does not apply. In this regard, we may state that Section 95 only builds on proviso 6 of Section 92”,
“If the contrary view is adopted as correct it would render Section 92of the Evidence Act, otiose and also enlarge the ambit of proviso beyond the main Section itself. Such interpretation, provided by the High Court violates basic tenants of legal interpretation. Section 92 specifically prohibits evidence of any oral agreement or statement which would contradict, vary, add to or subtract from its terms. If, as stated by the learned Judge, oral evidence could be received to show that the terms of the document were really different from those expressed therein, it would amount to according to permission to give evidence to contradict or vary those terms and as such it comes within the inhibitions of Section 92. It could not be postulated that the legislature intended to nullify the object of Section 92 by enacting exceptions to that section”.