Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the provision that when as laid

down under section 91 the documents which are required to be in writing such as the
terms of the contract, grant or other deposition of property or any other matter
required by the law in writing then the court cannot allow being lead by oral evidence
to the party contract or legal representative for the purpose of contradicting, varying,
addition or subtraction from the contract.

Section 92 comes into operation when the documents have been submitted under
section 91 for the purpose of contradicting, varying, addition or any modification
from its terms.

Section 92 of the Act clarifies itself that only such oral arguments are excluded which
contradicts the terms of contract, deposition or any other matter required to be in
writing. If such a document is not a contract, grant or deposition of property, then the
oral evidence can be included to vary its content.

Section 92 is applicable only to the parties to the instrument and not to the person
who is a stranger to the instrument. In the case of Ram Janaki Raman v. State, it was
held by the court that the bar laid down by section 92 of the Act was not applicable
under the Criminal proceeding.

Proviso (1): The facts which invalidate the document

If a fact will invalidate the contact then no man is debarred from proving that fact.
According to the laws of contract, any contract which is created by fraud or undue
influence, it is not enforceable and considered invalid. So, such facts are easy to prove
in the circumstances when the contract has been reduced into written form.

Proviso (2): Separate oral arguments

The term separate oral arguments in this context refer to the oral agreements made
before entering into the documents. The contemporaneous or prior oral agreements
are referred to under Proviso (2) of section 92.  
When there is a prior oral agreement on a matter about which the document is silent,
then it can be proved only when such terms of oral agreements are not in
contradiction with the terms of the contract.

So, as held in the case of Bal Ram v. Ramesh Chandra, the requirements of this
proviso are:

1. On the matter on which the document is silent, a separate oral agreement

should be related to it.
2. Such oral agreement should not be inconsistent with the terms of the
document.

Proviso (3): Separate Oral Argument as a condition precedent

The situation when an oral agreement is to the effect that it will not be effective or
will not be enforced unless a condition precedent is fulfilled or unless a certain event
takes place, the oral agreements are admissible in this case to show that as such
condition has not been performed, the contract was not enforceable.

Proviso (4): Distinct oral agreement made subsequently to renew or modify the
contract

To prove any subsequent oral agreement leading to alteration of terms of all the
written contracts except to the contracts which are required to be in writing by law
evidence can be given.

When a transaction is reduced to writing which is not required by law to be in writing

but the agreement is made for the convenience of parties then an oral agreement made
subsequently to modify it is admissible.

Proviso (5): Any usage or customs by which incidents not mentioned in any contract
are usually annexed to contract

Parole evidence of usage and customs are always admissible. When the object is to
make intelligible before the court about the meaning in which the parties have used a
parole evidence may be given to prove any local custom of the general application, so
that it may be applied to the subject matter of the contract and bind the parties to the
written contract unless such usage or custom is inconsistent with the writing.

Proviso (6): Extrinsic evidence of surrounding circumstances

Whenever a document is required to be proved before the court, its object is to

endeavour and ascertain its real meaning and the extrinsic evidence are necessary for
this purpose. The object of admissibility of the evidence of the surrounding
circumstances is to ascertain the real evidence of the parties but from the language of
the document, the intentions of parties must be gathered as explained by extrinsic
evidence.

Inter-relation between section 91 and 92

Section 91 and 92 are supplementary to each other. Both sections support and

complete each other. When the terms of the contract, deposition of a property or any
matter required to be in writing under the law if proved by the document then the oral
evidence is not required to contradict it.

After a document has been produced to prove its terms under section 91; then the
provisions of section 92 comes into play for excluding evidences of any oral
agreement or statement for the purpose of contradicting, varying, addition or
subtraction from its terms.

Even though the two sections are supplementary to each other, both sections differ
about some of the opinions in particular. Section 91 deals with the documents whether
or not they are having the purpose to dispose off the rights or not but section 92 is
applicable to the documents which are dispositive in nature.

Section 91 applies to the document which is both bilateral and unilateral documents
but section 92 applies only to the document which is of bilateral nature.