Recitals in Written Documents Precede Oral Contradictions Under Sections 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act

The Appellant filed a suit for recovery of ₹2,84,500/-, claiming he advanced a loan of ₹3,20,000/- to the Respondent in September 2013

The Respondent issued a cheque for the full amount in 2014, which was dishonored for "Account Closed"

Through a written Settlement Agreement dated March 16, 2015, the parties agreed to resolve the matter for ₹1,10,000/- payable in installments, with a default clause stating that if two installments were missed, the Appellant could claim the original ₹3,20,000/-

The Respondent paid six installments (totaling ₹60,000/-) but defaulted thereafter

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, doubting the loan's authenticity due to alleged contradictions between the Appellant’s oral testimony and the timeline of the cheque

1. Whether oral evidence is admissible in the teeth of a written document?

2. Whether findings based on oral evidence, in contradiction to a written document, are contrary to Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act?

The court primarily applied Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which exclude oral evidence once the terms of a contract or disposition of property have been reduced to the form of a document

It relied on V. Anantha Raju v. T.M. Narasimhan (2021) and Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (2003) to affirm that written instruments are the final expression of parties' intentions and cannot be disturbed by "slippery memory" or subsequent oral statements

Additionally, the court applied Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act regarding "free consent," noting that bald allegations of coercion without material particulars are insufficient to void a contract, citing M/s Unikol Bottlers Ltd. v. M/s Dhillon Kool Drinks (1994)

The High Court found that the lower courts committed a serious illegality by prioritizing oral testimony over the admitted Settlement Agreement (Ex. PW-1/7)

The Court observed that the Respondent’s signature on the settlement was admitted and, crucially, he had partially performed the contract by paying six installments over seven months

This conduct was held to be inconsistent with the Respondent’s defense of "coercion" or "illiteracy"

The Court rejected the lower courts' findings regarding contradictions in the loan timeline, noting that in close personal associations, issuance of a cheque a year after a loan is reasonable

Since the settlement terms clearly stipulated that a default would revive the original debt of ₹3,20,000/-, the Respondent was legally bound by his written commitment

The Court set aside the previous judgments and decreed the suit in favor of the Appellant for the balance sum of ₹2,60,000/- (original ₹3,20,000/- minus ₹60,000/- already paid) along with pendente lite and future interest at 5% p.a. until realization