Explain with reasons whether extrinsic oral evidence is admissible in any of the following cases.

Question: Explain with reasons whether extrinsic oral evidence is admissible in any of the following cases.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Explain with reasons whether extrinsic oral evidence is admissible in any of the following cases.]

Answer

1. A sells B a horse and verbally warrants him sound. A gives B a paper in these words. “Bought of A, a horse for Rs. 500.” Can B prove the verbal warranty?

Section 92 talks about the exclusion of evidence of oral agreement. Sections 92 recognize certain exceptions to this general rule and set them out in the form of provisos to the main rule. In which oral evidence concerning a document is allowed for the purposes stated in the exceptions.

The first proviso to Section 92 says that evidence can be given of any fact which would invalidate the document in question or which would entitle a party to any decree or order relating to the document.

The validity of a document may be questioned, for example, on the ground that it was obtained by fraud, intimidation or illegality, or that the document was not duly executed, or that one of the parties was incompetent to contract, or that there was a mistake of fact or of law or that there was no consideration or consideration had failed

Thus, oral evidence can be given of the fact that the agreement in question was entered into for the purpose of preventing or stifling a prosecution. This fact would render the agreement to be illegal, being opposed to public policy. It can also be shown by oral evidence that the agreement in question was a sham or only fictitious, for in that case it would be fraudulent and, therefore, void under section23 of the Contract Act.

The facts of the case are borrowed from Illustration (g) to section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this case, A sells B a horse and verbally warrants him sound. A gives B a paper in these words “Bought of A a horse for Rs. 500”. B may prove the verbal warranty in case A has done fraud by misrepresenting the true state of the horse.

2. A applies to B for a debt due to A by sending a receipt for the money. B keeps the receipt and does not send the money. Can A prove this in a suit for the account?

Under section 92, Indian Evidence Act, any fact would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto may be proved, such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, failure of consideration, a mistake in fact or law. In such case, oral agreement or statement shall be admitted as between the parties to any such document or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of proving the document.

The facts of the present case are borrowed from illustration (i) to section 92, the Indian Evidence Act. In this case, A applies to B for a debt due to A by sending a receipt for the money. B keeps the receipt and does not send the money. In a suit for the amount, A may prove this by oral evidence.

3. A sale in good faith by the client to an attorney, is in question, in a suit by the client.

The facts of the case are borrowed from the illustration (a) to section 111, Indian Evidence Act.

Section 111, talks about Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation to active confidence.—

Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence.

In the case, where the good faith of a sale by a client to an attorney is in question in a suit brought by the client, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the attorney.

The principle of the rule embodied in this section which was called “the great rule of the Court” is “he who bargains in a matter of advantage with a person placing confidence in him is bound to show, that a reasonable use has been made of that confidence; a rule applying to trustees, attorneys, or anyone else.”

Where a fiduciary or quasi-fiduciary relationship exists, the burden of sustaining a transaction between the parties rests with the party who stands in such relationships and is benefitted from it.

4. A agrees to sell to B for Rs. 1000/- my white horse. A has two white horses. Can evidence be given to facts that show which of them was meant?

Sections 93 to 98 lay down the rule about admission or exclusion of extrinsic evidence in connection with facts contained in any document whether it is a contract or not. Where a document has been filed in a court and proved, the function of the court is to interpret it so as to find out the true meaning of the words used and to give effect to the true intention of the maker.

Sections 93 to 98 lay down rules as to the interpretation of documents with the aid of extrinsic evidence. Interpretation means ascertaining the meaning of the language of a document or the manner in which it is related to existing facts.

A patent ambiguity is where the language of the document is so uncertain and effective on the face of it that no meaning can be given to the document. The Patent ambiguity is personal and is related to the person who executes the document. No oral evidence is allowed to remove patent ambiguity. A patent ambiguity is based on the rule that patent ambiguity makes the document useless.

Latent ambiguity is not evident from prima facie inspection of the document but becomes apparent when the language of the document is applied to existing circumstances. Oral evidence is permitted to remove latent ambiguity. The rule of giving oral evidence in case of latent ambiguity is based on the principle that latent ambiguity does not make the document useless.

So, where the language of the deed is clear and plain but it turns out that there is more than one person or thing to which the description applies, it is latent ambiguity. For instance, in the case of question (c) where A agrees to sell to B “my white horse.”

The meaning of the language is not ambiguous at all. But it turns out that A has 2 white horses and this fact makes the document ambiguous and it becomes uncertain as to which horse was sold.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X