AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 2633 ::2000 AIR SCW 2849 ::(2001) 1 MarriLJ 199 ::2001 (1) Marr LJ 199 ::(2000) RevDec 615 ::(2001) 2 CivLJ 793 ::2000 (7) SCC 104 ::2000 (4) RecCivR 93 ::(2000) 5 Scale 517 ::2001 (1) All CJ 32 ::2000 (40) All LR 806 ::2000 (3) BLJR 1996 ::(2001) 1 Mad LW 855 ::(2001) 1 Mad LJ 40 ::2000 (3) SCJ 212 ::2000 (3) LRI 1087 ::(2000) 5 Supreme 450 ::2000 (8) SRJ 53 ::(2000) 9 JT 345 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Madras)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): V. N. Khare, S. N. Variava , JJ

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.92 Proviso(4)— Contract, grant, or disposition required by law to be in writing - Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement varying terms of the written document - Exemption carved out by proviso (4) - Explained. S. 92 provides that when the terms of any contract, grant or other disposition of the property, or any matter required by law to be reduced in the form of document, have been proved, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement is permissible for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding or subtracting the said written document. However this provision is subject to proviso 1 to 6. What proviso (4) to S. 92 provides is that where a contract or disposition, not required by law to be in writing, has been arrived at orally then subsequent oral agreement modifying or rescinding the said contract or disposition can be substantiated by parol evidence and such evidence is admissible. Thus if a party has entered into a contract which is not required to be reduced in writing but such a contract has been reduced in writing, or it is oral, in such situations it is always open to the parties to the contract to modify its terms and even substitute anew by oral contract and it can be substantiated by parol evidence. In such kind of cases the oral evidence can be let in to prove that the earlier contract or agreement has been mo....