Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani
(2003) 6 SCC 595 · Supreme Court of India
When the terms of a contract have been reduced to writing, oral evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary those terms, subject to the statutory provisos.
Unit III · Law of Evidence
Oral and documentary evidence; exclusion of oral by documentary
Study aid only. Confirm statute numbers with the current bare Act and the official OU LL.B. (3-YDC) 2024–25 syllabus PDF.
Statute sections
| Act / instrument | Section | Name |
|---|---|---|
| Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 | 54–55 | Oral evidence and the rule that it must be direct (IEA 59–60) |
| Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 | 56–58 | Proof of contents of documents; primary and secondary evidence (IEA 61–65) |
| Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 | 94–103 | Exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence (IEA 91–100) |
Landmark cases
J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani
(2007) 5 SCC 730 · Supreme Court of India
Secondary evidence of a document is admissible only after a proper foundation is laid explaining the non-production of the original.