Section 92 IEA: Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 92 IEA at a Glance
Section 92 IEA deals with exclusion of evidence of oral agreement. From 1 July 2024 it is replaced by Section 95 BSA.
Section 92 IEA Bare Act Text
92. 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 the last section, 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:
Proviso (1).—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.
Proviso (2).—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.
Proviso (3).—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.
Proviso (4).—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.
Proviso (5).—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 that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract.
Proviso (6).—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 Calcutta to London”. 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 Rs. 1,000 on the first March 1873. The fact that, at the same time, an oral agreement was made that the money should not be paid till the thirty-first March, cannot be proved.
(c) An estate called “the Rampore 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 of Rs. 500”. B may prove the verbal warranty.
(h) A hires lodgings of B, and gives B a card on which is written —“Rooms, Rs. 200 a month.” A may prove a verbal agreement that these terms were to include partial board.
A hires lodgings of B for a year, and a regularly stamped agreement, drawn up by an attorney, 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.
Source: Section 92, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 92 IEA in Simple Words
Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stops parties from using oral agreements or statements to contradict, change, add to, or reduce the terms of a proved written document. It applies once a written contract, grant, disposition of property (transfer of property rights), or legally required writing is proved under the preceding section, and binds the parties and their representatives in interest (successors to the rights of a party).
The provisos to Section 92 IEA allow oral evidence in specific cases. A party may prove facts that invalidate a document or justify a court order on it, such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, improper execution, lack of capacity, failure of consideration (value promised in return), or mistake of fact or law.
A party may prove a consistent oral agreement on a matter where the document is silent, depending on how formal the document is, or an oral condition precedent (something that must happen before any obligation takes effect).
A party may also prove a later oral agreement to rescind (cancel) or modify the arrangement, unless the law requires writing or the document is registered. Customary terms consistent with the written terms, and facts showing how the wording relates to existing facts, may also be proved.
When Section 92 IEA Applies
- The written terms of a contract, grant, property transfer, or matter required by law to be in a document have been proved as required by the preceding section of the Act.
- The issue arises between the parties to that written instrument or their representatives in interest.
- A party seeks to admit an oral agreement or statement to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the written terms.
- Even a subsequent oral agreement to cancel or modify a contract, grant, or property transfer is barred if the law requires the transaction to be in writing or if the document has been registered.
Example of Section 92 IEA
When Section 92 IEA Does Not Apply
- A party may prove any fact that invalidates the document or entitles a person to a decree or order relating to it, including fraud, intimidation, illegality, lack of proper execution or capacity, failure of consideration, or mistake of fact or law.
- A party may prove a separate oral agreement on a matter on which the document is silent if it is not inconsistent with the written terms, taking into account how formal the document is, or prove a separate oral agreement that is a condition precedent to any obligation attaching.
- A party may prove a distinct later oral agreement to cancel or modify a contract, grant, or property transfer (unless required by law to be in writing or registered), usage or custom consistent with the express terms, or facts showing how the language of the document relates to existing facts.
Section 92 IEA in the BSA
Section 92 IEA is now covered under Section 95 BSA.
Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 became Section 95 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 on 1 July 2024. No substantive change. The six provisos are now "Provided that" clauses. Illustrations use current places, dates and sums.
View detailed comparison (IEA 92 vs BSA 95) →FAQs on Section 92 IEA
What is Section 92 IEA?▼
Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 excludes evidence of any oral agreement or statement between the parties to a proved written contract, grant, disposition of property, or legally mandated document when offered to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from its written terms. Its provisos allow oral evidence in specified situations such as fraud, mistake, silent matters, conditions precedent, and certain later oral changes.
Can a party give oral evidence under Section 92 IEA to show that a written contract was obtained by fraud or mistake?▼
Yes. Under Proviso (1) to Section 92 IEA, any fact that would invalidate a document or entitle a person to a decree or order relating to it, including fraud, intimidation, illegality, failure of consideration, or mistake of fact or law, may be proved.
Does Section 92 IEA allow proof of a separate oral agreement on something the written document does not mention?▼
Yes. Under Proviso (2) to Section 92 IEA, a separate oral agreement on a matter on which the document is silent may be proved if it is not inconsistent with the written terms. In deciding this, the court considers how formal the document is.
Can a registered contract or a contract required by law to be in writing be modified by a later oral agreement under Section 92 IEA?▼
No. While Proviso (4) to Section 92 IEA allows proof of a distinct later oral agreement to cancel or modify a contract, grant, or disposition of property, it excludes cases where the law requires writing or where the document has been registered.
Can oral evidence be given under Section 92 IEA to show that a written contract was meant to take effect only if a certain condition happened first?▼
Yes. Under Proviso (3) to Section 92 IEA, a party may prove a separate oral agreement that forms a condition precedent before any obligation under the written contract, grant, or disposition of property attaches.
What is Section 92 IEA in BSA?▼
Section 95 BSA. Section 92 IEA became Section 95 BSA on 1 July 2024 with no substantive change, with the numbered provisos written as Provided that clauses and the illustrations updated to current places, dates, and sums.
Have questions about Section 92 IEA?
Ask NyayGuru for a plain language explanation, or how it applies to your situation.
Ask NyayGuru →Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.
Sources: Bare Act Text, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ·