Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document
Section 94 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document. When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained
Exception 1.--When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved.
Exception 2.--Wills admitted to probate in India may be proved by the probate.
Explanation 1.--This section applies equally to cases in which the contracts, grants or dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document, and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one.
Explanation 2.--Where there are more originals than one, one original only need be proved.
Explanation 3.--The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other than the facts referred to in this section, shall not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact.
Illustrations.
(a) If a contract be contained in several letters, all the letters in which it is contained must be proved.
(b) If a contract is contained in a bill of exchange, the bill of exchange must be proved.
(d) A contracts, in writing, with B, for the delivery of indigo upon certain terms. The contract mentions the fact that B had paid A the price of other indigo contracted for verbally on another occasion. Oral evidence is offered that no payment was made for the other indigo. The evidence is admissible.
(e) A gives B a receipt for money paid by B. Oral evidence is offered of the payment. The evidence is admissible
Section 94, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 91 Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 91, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-4.pdf 2003-04-02 DATE VERIFIED. CA 2631/2003. Patil/Pasayat. ss.91/92 best-evidence and parol-evidence: oral evidence may show a writing is a sham (Gangabai) but not to vary terms of a writing that was acted upon. Licence vs lease; Delhi Rent Control 16 bar on unconsented sub-tenancy.
On this section: Successor of IEA 91 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9893). The best-evidence rule for written dispositions carries to BSA 94.
-
Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs Rajendra Prasad
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 91, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a sale of property is effected by one document and is followed by a separate agreement for reconveyance, the transaction constitutes a sale followed by an option contract rather than a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently, the right to exercise the option to repurchase must be exercised within the applicable period of limitation. Furthermore, a deposit proceeding under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act is ministerial in nature and does not constitute a 'hearing and finally decided' adjudication on the merits of whether a mortgage exists, and therefore cannot operate as res judicata to estop the respondent from denying the existence of a mortgage.
On this section: Applied to bar oral evidence regarding separate collateral agreements not embodied in the main sale deed, subject to exceptions in Section 92.
-
Narayan Sitaram Badwaik (dead) Thr. Lrs vs Bisaram& ORS.
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 91, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a First Appellate Court adopts an erroneous legal approach in deciding factual issues, the High Court in a second appeal cannot simply uphold the Trial Court's judgment without conducting a proper assessment of the evidence in light of the correct legal principles. The High Court must either remand the matter for reconsideration by the First Appellate Court or itself exercise the power under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the factual issues afresh. A mechanical upholding of the Trial Court's decision without evidence assessment, even when the High Court has correctly identified legal errors, constitutes an improper exercise of appellate jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.
On this section: Relates to parol evidence and extrinsic evidence. The High Court noted that the District Judge should have considered the provisions of Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act to determine whether the document's true nature was a sale or a collateral security, instead of considering the irrelevant question of whether the document was void or voidable.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… same is based on some fictitious and sham agreement-to-sell which is not only barred under Section 17(1-A) of Registration Act but also runs contrary to the terms of the registered lease deed. Additionally, such plea of oral evidence is not maintainable and tenable in view of Section 91 & 92 of Evidence Act ( now Section 94 & 95 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The claimant has relied upon Adwel Advertising Service & Anr. V. South Delhi Municipal Corporation<sup>1</sup> , Sunil Kapoor v. Himmat Singh & Ors.<sup>2</sup> , Asman <sup>1</sup> 2018 (5) Arb. LR 281 (Delhi) DB 2 167 (2010) DLT …
Questions about Section 94
What have the courts held on Section 94 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (02 Apr 2003) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 91, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IEA 91 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9893). The best-evidence rule for written dispositions carries to BSA 94. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 94, section 94 BSA, section 94 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type bsa troop 94. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (02 Apr 2003).
What should I read with Section 94 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IEA 91 (Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 94 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 94 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 94, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.