… was submitted to prove its provisions, pursuant to Section 91, that the provisions of Section 92 come into effect to obtain receipts for … the rule of exclusion of oral agreements, set out in section 92, can be invoked. This position is clearly highlighted by the provisions of Section 99 itself. Section 99 provides that “people who do not… evidence of an oral agreement for the purpose of opposition, variation, addition or subtraction of the terms of the document in question. 9. The question raised by Shri… Once a document has been submitted to prove its terms in accordance with Section 91, the provisions of Section 92 amend the evidence of an agreement or verbal statement for the purposes of opposition, amendment, supplement or submission to its terms. ….
8.M. Bhattacharyya also argued that the finding of the appeal proceeding could not be set aside on the merits. The evidence presented orally by the applicants in support of the case … Reconveyance cannot be accepted because the existence of an oral agreement is not done by holding direct evidence in accordance with Section 60 of the… that the appeals authority came to the conclusion that there was no agreement for oral handover without considering the evidence to be recorded. If the appeal authority does not take into account the carpet… In the case of Y V Narasimha Sarma vs. Soorampalli Appalaraju Civil (A.P) Court Appeal No.
887 of 1982 decided that it is not necessary for a contract to be written only, an oral contract is also valid. Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Ownership Act, the oral purchase of a contract is true and valid. It was the plaintiff who filed the case to prove that the verbal agreement was true. He must provide real proof of his assertion. It is true that the written contract has some validity, but if there is an oral purchase agreement, it must be proven with sufficient evidence. The court must also consider the matter very carefully in order to reach a conclusion. But A has no home in Lucknow, but he has a house in Kanpur where B has lived since the execution. Then the evidence can be used to prove that the crime is related to the Kanpur house. In the case of Keshav Lal/Lal Bhai T. Mills Ltd., it was decided by the Supreme Court that the parties or the Tribunal would not be allowed to eliminate ambiguity or indeterminacy on the basis of the extrinsic evidence. The evidence, which is limited to words through the mouth, is oral evidence. If oral evidence is laudable, it is sufficient to prove a fact or title without proof of evidence.
The oral evidence provisions are set out in Chapter IV of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Oral testimony may be considered questionable if it contradicts the previous testimony. Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with latent ambiguity and oral evidence can be provided with respect to the elimination of latent ambiguities. If the language used in the document is simple and clear, but it is not in the importance of existing facts because of errors in the descriptor evidence and such errors can be shown that it was used in a particular sense. To eliminate latent ambiguity, oral evidence is permitted. Oral evidence, which is excluded in the event of an act under paragraph 91, only if the act contains the terms of the contract or if it eliminates property or if the law binds the contents of the document in writing. As in the case of Tahuri Shal v. Jhunjhunwala, a law makes adoption non-compulsory in writing.
The act of acceptance is only a record of acceptance. It does not create rights. It is nothing more than a piece of evidence, and if a party fails to produce it, the law does not prevent it from presenting oral evidence.