ROOP KUMAR V. MOHAN THEDANI (2003) SC 2418
- The case of Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (2003) concerns the interpretation and application of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, elucidated by the Supreme Court of India through the delineation of the following principles
-
• Section 91, as expounded by the Supreme Court, pertains to the admissibility of evidence regarding terms of contracts, grants, and other dispositions of properties recorded in written form, thereby mandating that the contents of such documents must be proven through written evidence exclusively. This provision embodies the principle of substantive law emphasizing the primacy of documentary evidence over oral testimony, thereby aligning with the best evidence rule. Notably, Section 91 imposes limitations wherein a third party seeking to establish the existence of a documented contract between two parties must produce the contract in writing as the sole means of proof. Section 92 completes Section 91 by precluding the use of oral evidence to vary the terms of a contract, thereby functioning in harmony with each other. However, Section 92 diverges from Section 91 by introducing limitations absent in the latter provision.
- Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 pertains to the evidential requirements for documents presented before the court, whereas Section 92 exclusively addresses the parties involved in the document.
- Section 91 applies to both bilateral and unilateral documents, whereas Section 92 is limited to bilateral documents only.
-->
