Proviso 6 To Section 92 Will Not Apply If The Document Is Straightforward With No Ambiguity: SC

By: U.Jayakrishnan ( An advocate practising at Kerala High court.)

The proviso 6 to Section 92 of the Evidence Act will not apply if there is no ambiguity in the document's meaning:- The Supreme Court of India.

Earlier, the Bombay High Court held that an agreement was to be a lease and license agreement to occupy a rented premises by relying on proviso 6 to Section 92 and Section 95 of the Evidence Act. Hence the civil suit is not maintainable. The matter would have to go to the special court under the Bombay Rent Act.

Section 92 of the Evidence Act bars giving oral evidence with respect to the contents of a written document. However, proviso 6 to Section 92 allows the admission of facts external to the document which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts.

While considering the appeal considering whether the agreement in a case should be interpreted as a license to run a business or a license to occupy the rented premises in which the business was located. The Hon’ble Supreme court held that If the agreement is a lease and license agreement to occupy the rented premises, a civil suit would not have been maintainable

The court led by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana held. held that:

“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 the 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 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"

Read the entire judgement

oral evidence not needed if the document.

Download • 390KB