Written contract prevails over oral dealings: extrinsic conduct could not alter freight payment terms or create a multi-slab right.

The written contract governed the parties' rights on freight charges, and the claim that payment was due on a multi-slab basis was rejected. Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 barred reliance on oral discussions or other extrinsic evidence to alter the written terms, absent incompleteness or ambiguity. The handwritten endorsement relied on by the plaintiffs was treated as a later insertion, not part of the tender when submitted. Post-tender discussions and the fact that some bills were passed on a multi-slab basis by certain officers could not vary the contract or create a right inconsistent with its written terms.

---

---

Issues: Whether the freight charges under the written contract were payable on a multi-slab basis, and whether the alleged handwritten insertion, subsequent conduct of officers, or oral discussions could vary the terms of the written agreement.

Analysis: The parties were bound by the written contract. Under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when the terms of a contract are reduced to writing, oral or other extrinsic evidence cannot be used to alter those terms unless the writing is incomplete or ambiguous. The handwritten endorsement relied upon by the plaintiffs was found not to have been part of the tender at the time of submission and was treated as a later insertion. The alleged post-tender discussion and the passing of some bills on a multi-slab basis by certain officers could not override the written contract or create a contractual right inconsistent with it.

Conclusion: The claim that the contract provided for payment on a multi-slab basis was rejected. The written contract was held to govern the parties' rights, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to rely on extrinsic conduct or oral discussion to vary its terms.

---