Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (AIR 2003 SC 2418)
Best Evidence Rule under Sections 91 & 92 of the Indian Evidence Act
Supreme Court of India
2003
Citation: AIR 2003 SC 2418
Evidence Law
Contract & Rent
Reading: ~7 min
Quick Summary
This case explains the “best evidence rule.” When parties write their terms in a document, the document speaks. Oral statements cannot change those written terms, except in narrow situations under the provisos to Section 92. The Supreme Court upheld relief for the plaintiffs because the defendant acted on the written agreement and even submitted accounts. A plea based on an unlawful sub-tenancy could not succeed.
Issues
- Can the defendant label the agency-cum-license agreement as a “sham” using oral evidence?
- How do Sections 91 and 92 IEA control proof of written terms and exclusion of oral proof?
Rules (Indian Evidence Act)
Section 91: When terms are written, the document must be proved; not oral accounts of its terms.
Section 92: Parties cannot use oral evidence to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the written terms (subject to provisos).
DRC Act: Sub-tenancy without the landlord’s written permission is barred; a plea based on illegality fails.
Principle: Written contract = final record of intention between parties and privies.
Facts (Timeline)
Plaintiff 1 was a shop tenant under the Shops & Commercial Establishments Act; Plaintiff 2 (father/POA) managed terms.
15 May 1975: Agency-cum-license agreement with defendant for showroom use; commission @ 12% on tailoring and @ 3% on material sales.
Clause 5: Separate accounts for tailoring and cloth materials to be kept by the defendant.
Agreement expired on 14 May 1980; it was not renewed. Possession was never transferred to the defendant.
Defendant allegedly trespassed; displayed signboards as if “Roop Tailors and Drapers” were operating there.
Accounts were rendered up to 30 Jun 1976; payments made by cheque/other modes. Further accounts up to 31 Mar 1978 signed by defendant.
After that, no accounts/payments despite reminders. Legal notice demanded commission and true accounts.
Post 14 May 1980: Defendant was asked to vacate; he continued in occupation. S.145 CrPC proceedings followed; defendant filed an injunction suit.
Plaintiffs sought possession, damages, commission, and rendition of accounts. Defendant called the agreement “sham” and denied commission terms.
Trial Court decreed for plaintiffs; found the arrangement a license, not sub-letting. High Court affirmed. Supreme Court examined on appeal.
Arguments
Appellant (Defendant)
- The agreement was a sham; real relationship was different.
- Claimed no genuine commission arrangement existed.
- Attempted to rely on oral assertions to vary written terms.
Respondents (Plaintiffs)
- Written agreement governed parties; defendant acted on it.
- Commission and separate accounts were acknowledged by signed statements.
- No lawful sub-tenancy without landlord’s permission under DRC Act.
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the relief in favour of the plaintiffs.
- Sections 91 and 92 IEA controlled proof: the written agreement prevailed over oral claims.
- The defendant’s own conduct—submitting accounts and paying commission—supported the agreement.
- Plea of sub-tenancy failed; law bars sub-tenancy without the landlord’s permission.
Ratio Decidendi
When terms are written, they must be proved by the document itself (S.91). Oral evidence cannot contradict or vary those written terms between the parties (S.92), save for limited proviso situations. Parties who act on a written contract cannot later disown it by resorting to oral claims.
Why It Matters
- Promotes certainty in commercial and property dealings.
- Protects written bargains from afterthoughts and unreliable memory.
- Clarifies how Sections 91 and 92 operate together in practice.
Key Takeaways
- Document first: prove written terms via the document (S.91).
- No oral contradiction of written terms (S.92), except narrow provisos.
- Illegal sub-tenancy cannot be a valid defence or claim.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “Write Rules the Fight.”
- Writen terms control (S.91).
- Rules bar oral change (S.92).
- Fight with provisos only in limited cases.
3-Step Hook: (1) Are terms in writing? → Use the document. (2) Any oral claim to vary? → Bar it. (3) Do provisos apply? → If yes, test narrowly.
IRAC Outline
Issue: Can oral claims override a written agency-cum-license agreement and its commission clauses?
Rule: S.91 requires documentary proof; S.92 bars oral variation of written terms (subject to provisos).
Application: Defendant rendered accounts and made payments per agreement; oral plea of “sham” cannot undo written terms.
Conclusion: Written agreement stands; relief for plaintiffs is justified. Sub-tenancy plea fails due to statutory bar.
Glossary
- Best Evidence Rule
- When terms are written, the document is the best evidence of those terms.
- Parol Evidence
- Oral statements outside the document; generally excluded to vary written terms.
- License vs Sub-tenancy
- License gives permission to use; sub-tenancy transfers interest. Sub-tenancy needs landlord’s consent.
FAQs
No. They block oral proof of written terms between parties. But the provisos to Section 92 allow limited exceptions, for example fraud, mistake, or separate collateral agreements.
Because the defendant himself acted on the written agreement—kept accounts and paid commission. Conduct confirmed the document’s genuineness.
Sub-tenancy without landlord permission is forbidden. Courts will not accept a defence that relies on an illegal sub-tenancy.
If terms are written, produce the document (S.91). Do not rely on oral claims to change those terms (S.92), unless a specific proviso applies.
Reviewed by The Law Easy
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Sections 91 & 92
Supreme Court
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now