Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document
Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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.
(c) If a bill of exchange is drawn in a set of three, one only need 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 91, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 94 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
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: s.91 best-evidence: when the terms of a contract or grant are reduced to writing, those terms are proved by the writing, not by oral evidence (Roop Kumar).
-
Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs Rajendra Prasad
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.
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.
-
… That the law of evidence requires that direct and primary evidence, if available, must be given for proof of a fact and such evidence would be the best evidence of such fact. This foundational rule is reflected, interalia, in Sections 59 to 65 and Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Evidence Act" for the sake of brevity). In the instant case, the evidence of the successful candidate's mother and the delivering doctor is direct oral evidence of the fact of birth of the successful candidate on a given date. - 8.4. It was …
-
… that the gift deed (Ex.P-3/D-1) was indeed attested by them and the deceased was aware about the contents of the document. - (iv) He further submits that the signatures of the attesting witnesses and also the thumb impression of the donor Baldev Raj Sharma are undisputed. Therefore, in light of the provisions of Sections 90 and 91 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , any oral evidence contrary to the document is not acceptable. The execution of the document and its registration are further supported by the Junior Assistant who appeared as PW5 from the office of Sub-Registrar. Thus, once the gift deed has been legally registered, the same …
-
… The suit is based on an unregistered promissory note Ex.A1 – sale agreement, dated 09.04.2009. Though the appellant claimed that it is a concocted document making use of his signed empty stamp papers, he did not claim that the signature is not his signature. As per Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, whenever the terms of contract is reduced into writing, the same can be proved by the production of the same. After producing Ex.A1 – sale agreement, the initial burden about the execution of the contract would get discharged by the plaintiff. Since the appellant / defendant denied the …
Questions about Section 91
What have the courts held on Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (02 Apr 2003) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.91 best-evidence: when the terms of a contract or grant are reduced to writing, those terms are proved by the writing, not by oral evidence (Roop Kumar). 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 91 of the Indian Evidence Act?
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: IEA 91, section 91 IEA, section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act. People searching for it also type evidence act 91 and 92 and indian evidence act 91. 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 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 94 (Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 91, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.