100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 27 - 29 out of 51 pages.
4) Recession or modification– As per proviso 4, to rescind a document means to set it aside andto modify means to drop some of it as cancelled or to modify some of its terms; such oral agreement may be proved. This is, however, subject to one qualification stated in the proviso itself, namely, where the contract is one is required by law to be in writing, or where it has been registered according to the law relating to registration of documents, then proof cannot be given of any oral agreement by which it was agreed either to resigned the document or to modify its terms.5) Usages and customs-The proviso 5, therefore, provide that the existence of any usage or a custom by which incidents are attached to a particular type of contract can be proved. But this is subject to the condition that the usage or custom of which proof is offered should not be against the express terms of the document. The usage should not be repugnant to or inconsistent with the document, for otherwise it would nullify the document.6) Relation of language of facts– The facts upon which the document is to operate are sometimes set out in the contract itself and sometimes not. Oral evidence is also receivable to throw light upon the nature of a document. The section does not fetter the power of the court to arrive at the true meaning of a document as disclosed by all the relevant surrounding circumstances.
LAW OF EVIDENCE Exception 1-Appointment of a Public Officer: Where the appointment of a public officer is required by law to be made by writing and the question is whether an appointment was made, if it is shown that a particular person has acted as such officer that will be sufficient proof of the fact of appointment and the writing by which he was appointed need not be proved.Exception 2-Wills: Wills admitted to probate in India may be proved by the probate. The document containing the will need not be produced. “Probate” is copy of the will certified under the seal of the court and, therefore, is a sufficient proof of the content of the will.Section 94deals with the Exclusion of evidence against application of document of existingfacts. This section applies when the execution of the document has been admitted and novitiating fact has been proved against it. In the case of General Court Enterprises P. Ltd v. JohnPhilipose it was held that oral evidence of explanatory nature was admissible.Section 95deals with the Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts.When the language of a document is plain but in its application to the existing facts it ismeaningless, evidence can be given to show how it was intended to apply to those facts.Section 96 deals with the Evidence as to application of languages which can apply to one only ofseveral persons. As per Schuthon Nayar v. Achuthan Nayar, where a promissory note mentioneda date according to the local calendar and also according to the international calendar, but the