Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement
Section 95 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with exclusion of evidence of oral agreement. When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to section 94, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrumen The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to section 94, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:
Provided that any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law:
Provided further that the existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document:
Provided also that the existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved:
Provided also that the existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents:
Provided also that any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved:
Provided also that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract:
Provided also that any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts.
Illustrations.
(a) A policy of insurance is effected on goods "in ships from Kolkata to Visakhapatnam". The goods are shipped in a particular ship which is lost. The fact that particular ship was orally excepted from the policy, cannot be proved.
(b) A agrees absolutely in writing to pay B one thousand rupees on the 1st March, 2023. The fact that, at the same time, an oral agreement was made that the money should not be paid till the 31st March, 2023, cannot be proved.
(c) An estate called "the Rampur tea estate" is sold by a deed which contains a map of the property sold. The fact that land not included in the map had always been regarded as part of the estate and was meant to pass by the deed cannot be proved.
(d) A enters into a written contract with B to work certain mines, the property of B, upon certain terms. A was induced to do so by a misrepresentation of B's as to their value. This fact may be proved.
(e) A institutes a suit against B for the specific performance of a contract, and also prays that the contract may be reformed as to one of its provisions, as that provision was inserted in it by mistake. A may prove that such a mistake was made as would by law entitle him to have the contract reformed.
(f) A orders goods of B by a letter in which nothing is said as to the time of payment, and accepts the goods on delivery. B sues A for the price. A may show that the goods were supplied on credit for a term still unexpired.
(g) A sells B a horse and verbally warrants him sound. A gives B a paper in these words-- "Bought of A a horse for thirty thousand rupees". B may prove the verbal warranty
(h) A hires lodgings of B, and gives B a card on which is written-- "Rooms, ten thousand rupees a month". A may prove a verbal agreement that these terms were to include partial board. A hires lodging of B for a year, and a regularly stamped agreement, drawn up by an advocate, is made between them. It is silent on the subject of board. A may not prove that board was included in the term verbally.
(i) 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.
(j) A and B make a contract in writing to take effect upon the happening of a certain contingency. The writing is left with B who sues A upon it. A may show the circumstances under which it was delivered.
Section 95, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 92 Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
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 92, 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 92 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9651). The parol-evidence bar carries to BSA 95.
-
Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs Rajendra Prasad
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 92, 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: Exceptions to the parol evidence rule that may allow evidence of separate agreements for reconveyance.
-
Narayan Sitaram Badwaik (dead) Thr. Lrs vs Bisaram& ORS.
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 92, 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 the interpretation of documents when the terms are ambiguous. The High Court indicates that Sections 91 and 92 are the appropriate legal framework for determining whether a document styled as a sale deed was intended to be acted upon as such or was meant only as collateral security.
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.
-
… Prior discussions do not form a part of cause of action in the formation of the contract. This is also in conformity with the law laid down under the Section 94 and 95 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023[17]( page-22-0) which bars admission of any pre-contractual negotiations which are not a part of the executed contract. The plea of the plaintiff to allege that the pre-contract negotiations were held at Delhi, though innovative, fails to give rise to any cause of action. 26. …
Questions about Section 95
What have the courts held on Section 95 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 92, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IEA 92 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9651). The parol-evidence bar carries to BSA 95. 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 95 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 95, section 95 BSA, section 95 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type bsa troop 95 and 94 95 bsa. 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 95 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 94 (Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward IEA 92 (Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 95 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 95 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 95, 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
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
- 119. Court may presume existence of certain facts673 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.