Oral evidence and section 92: a stranger to the document is not barred from proving the real transaction.

Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act bars oral evidence only between parties to a written instrument or their representatives in interest, and only to vary a duly proved document. In proceedings under section 55 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, the official assignee acts for creditors and is not the insolvent's representative in interest for this purpose. The transferees could therefore resist the assignee's claim by proving the true nature of the transaction, because the section 92 exclusion rests on mutuality and does not apply against a stranger to the document. Oral evidence to show that the deed of gift was supported by valuable consideration was therefore admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under section 55 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, the official assignee and the transferees were bound by section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act so as to exclude oral evidence to show that a deed of gift was supported by valuable consideration.

Analysis: Sections 91 and 92 operate together as parts of the rule governing proof of documentary transactions. Section 91 requires the document itself to prove its contents, while section 92 excludes oral evidence only as between the parties to the instrument or their representatives in interest, and only for varying the terms of a duly proved document. The proceeding under section 55 is not a proceeding by the official assignee as representative of the insolvent, but one taken for the benefit of creditors to avoid a transfer that has already gone out of the insolvent's estate. The official assignee therefore is not a representative in interest of the insolvent for the purpose of section 92. On the other hand, the transferees, being the insolvent's representatives in interest, are nevertheless entitled to resist the assignee's claim by proving the real nature of the transaction, because the exclusionary rule of section 92 rests on mutuality and does not apply in a dispute between a party and a stranger to the document. Section 99 confirms that strangers are outside the bar of section 92.

Conclusion: Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act did not bar the appellants from leading oral evidence, and they were entitled to adduce evidence to prove the alleged consideration behind the deed of gift.

Ratio Decidendi: The exclusion of oral evidence under section 92 applies only in disputes between parties to a written instrument or their representatives in interest, and does not apply where the proceeding is between a stranger to the document and a party to it, because the rule is founded on mutuality.

---