Evidence Act Provisions Won’t Apply In Straightforward Document With No Ambiguity: SC

Background Facts

An appeal was filed before Supreme Court to consider an appeal relating to the question that whether the agreement in the case should be understood as a license to carry a business or a license to inhabit the rented premises in which the business was situated.

If the agreement was a permission and license agreement to inhabit the rented premises, a civil suit would not be maintainable and such matter should go to the special court under the Bombay Rent Act.

The Bombay High Court held that agreement to be permission and license agreement to inhabit the rented premises, by relying on Section 92 proviso 6 and also Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act. Henceforth, the High Court had held that the civil suit was not maintainable.

What is Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act

As per Section 95, when the language used in a document is plain but does not form any meaning about existing facts the evidence can be looked into to show that it was used in a peculiar sense.

Apex Court Observation

The bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant, and Justice Aniruddha Bose

These two sections can be taken into account only in the case where the terms of the document lead to the question in doubt. Only then resort could be taken by referring to the proviso. But if any document is a straightforward one and no difficulty is present in construing it, the proviso must not apply. They were of the view that Section 95 only builds on proviso 6 of Section 92. The interpretation given by the HC led to violates of basic tenants of legal interpretation.  Section 92 specifically prohibits evidence of any oral agreement or statement which would contradict, vary, add to or subtract from its terms. It explicitly prohibits evidence of any oral agreement or statement which would contradict, vary, add to or subtract from its terms. Any oral evidence could be acknowledged to show that the terms of the document were dissimilar from those expressed therein and would amount to the permission given to produce evidence that is contrary to or vary those terms. It could not be assumed that the legislature 
intended to annul the object of Section 92 by enacting exceptions to that section.

Apex Court Decision

The Supreme Court which looking into the appeal filed held that it was vibrant from the reading of the contract that the parties intended to hand over the business from the appellant to the respondent and was not meant to lease or license for conducting business. The Supreme Court also held that reliance on proviso 6 to Section 92 and Section 95 was not called for in the case as the meaning in the document was clear.

Thereby, the apex court set aside the High Court judgment and restored the trial court decree, which had directed the respondent to deliver the premises to the appellant.

The Supreme Court further that Section 92 proviso 6 of the Evidence Act will not apply if a document is straightforward, without any ambiguity, and with clear meaning. Section 92 of the Evidence Act also bars oral evidence concerning the contents of a written document. However, it does allow the admission of facts that are external to the document which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to prevailing facts.

What is your take on the observation of the Apex Court in respect of Section 92 proviso 6 of the Evidence Act? Do you think that if any document is a straightforward one and no difficulty is present in construing it, the proviso must not apply?  Tell us in the comments below.