https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198646 Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not bar oral evidence on the antecedent question whether the parties ever assented to be bound by a written instrument. Oral proof is admissible to show that a signed document was conditional, a sham, or executed for a collateral purpose and was never intended to operate as a contract. On that basis, evidence that the writing was created only to present an appearance of undivided family status, and not to regulate rights and obligations, is receivable. The principle is that the rule excluding oral evidence applies only after a true written contract is proved; where no consensus ad idem exists, no binding agreement arises. en-us Fri, 06 Dec 1935 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Feb 2018 17:46:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198646 Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not bar oral evidence on the antecedent question whether the parties ever assented to be bound by a written instrument. Oral proof is admissible to show that a signed document was conditional, a sham, or executed for a collateral purpose and was never intended to operate as a contract. On that basis, evidence that the writing was created only to present an appearance of undivided family status, and not to regulate rights and obligations, is receivable. The principle is that the rule excluding oral evidence applies only after a true written contract is proved; where no consensus ad idem exists, no binding agreement arises. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Dec 1935 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198646