Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document

Reference: The Indian Evidence Act
Section 91

When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.
Exception 1. – When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved.
Exception 2. – Wills admitted to probate in India] may be proved by the probate.
Explanation 1- This Section applies equally to cases in which the contracts grants or dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one.
Explanation 2—Where there are more originals than one, one original only need be proved.
Explanation 3. – The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other then the facts referred to in this Section, shall, not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact.

Under this Section, no oral evidence can be given of the terms of a written contract, grant or other disposition of property. However, oral evidence may be given to show:
1. there was no agreement between the parties and as such, no contract (Tyagaraja Mudialiar v. Vadethanni, 1935)
2. a condition precedent to the formation of the contract (P B Bhatt v. V R Thakkar, 1971)
Thus, the only oral evidence excluded by this Section is oral evidence regarding the terms written in a document. If there is no document, this Section does not apply.
For example, under Hindu law, a partition may be oral. If it is oral, Section 91 has no application. But if it is in writing, the Section applies (and if it involves immovable property, the document must be registered).
The first exception to this Section deals with the appointment of a public officer and is partly a reflection of the maxim ‘Omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta’ which means that all acts are presumed to be rightly done (which is also seen in Section 79).
The second exception says that probate is admissible (even though it is secondary evidence).
This Section should be read along with (a) Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (b) O XVIII R 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and (c) the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act which respectively say that (a) evidence may be taken to show that a recorded statement of an accused person was duly made if a Criminal Court finds that the statement was not recorded in the proper manner, (b) the deposition of a witness must be read over to him (and if this is not done, oral evidence of its contents is inadmissible) and (c) an unregistered document which is required to be registered is admissible as evidence of collateral facts or any collateral transaction which need not be effected by a registered document.