TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether oral evidence was admissible, notwithstanding Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, to show that the document relied on was never intended to operate as an agreement and that there was therefore no contract between the parties.
Analysis: Sections 91 and 92 exclude oral evidence only to prove, vary, or contradict the terms of a written contract after the terms have been proved by the document itself. They do not bar evidence directed to the anterior question whether the parties ever assented to be bound by the document at all. Oral evidence may therefore be received to prove that a signed writing was conditional, or that it was executed merely as a sham or for some collateral purpose and was never meant to be operative as a contract. On that footing, evidence that the document was brought into existence only to create an appearance of an undivided family status, and was not to govern the parties' rights and obligations, was admissible. The same principle applies where the document is relied upon as though it embodied the real bargain, but the proof shows that no consensus ad idem ever existed.
Conclusion: Oral evidence was admissible, and the document did not constitute a binding contract.
Ratio Decidendi: Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not exclude oral evidence that the written instrument was never intended to operate as a contract and that no agreement was in fact concluded.
TaxTMI 
