Written contract proof and material alteration defeated enforcement, while delay also made the claim time-barred.

Where a contract is embodied in writing, its terms must be proved from the document itself, and oral evidence cannot be used to vary or supply those terms. Because the writings relied on were found to have been materially altered and mutilated, the instrument lost its legal identity and could not support recovery. The claim also failed on limitation: the alleged promise was for performance within a reasonable time, yet the suit was filed six years later, and the supposed acknowledgment was itself altered. The court therefore held the claim unenforceable and time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs could enforce the alleged contract when the document relied upon had been materially altered and oral evidence was barred; (ii) Whether the claim was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs could enforce the alleged contract when the document relied upon had been materially altered and oral evidence was barred.

Analysis: The alleged promise had been reduced to writing, so its terms had to be proved by the document itself or, where permissible, by secondary evidence of its contents. The Courts below found that the document had been mutilated by cutting off material words, and that the other paper relied upon had also been altered so as to change its legal effect. A party suing on such a document cannot rely on oral evidence to establish the contract, and a material alteration destroys the identity of the instrument and prevents recovery upon it.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not entitled to succeed on this basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Even on the plaintiffs' case, the promise was to pay only within a reasonable time, no time having been fixed for performance. The suit was brought six years after the letter relied upon, and the supposed acknowledgment or adjustment record was itself found to have been materially altered. On that footing, the cause of action was stale.

Conclusion: The claim was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal failed because the plaintiffs could not prove an enforceable claim on the basis of the altered writings and, in any event, the suit was time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract is embodied in writing, Section 91 excludes oral proof of its terms, and a material alteration by the party relying on the document destroys its legal identity so that recovery on the document is barred.

---