Oral admissions as to the contents of a documents are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules herein after contained, or unless the geniuses of a document produced is in question.
Simplified Explanation
Section 22 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevancy of oral admissions concerning the contents of documents. This section generally restricts the admissibility of oral statements about what a document contains, as the best evidence of a document’s contents is usually the document itself. However, there are exceptions where oral admissions can be relevant and admissible.
Explanation:
- General Rule:
- Oral admissions regarding the contents of a document are typically not relevant in court. This is because the best evidence of a document’s contents is the document itself (primary evidence), not someone’s oral recounting of what the document says.
- Exceptions:
- Secondary Evidence: If the party seeking to prove the oral admission can show that they are entitled to present secondary evidence of the document’s contents (for example, if the original document is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act), then oral admissions may become relevant.
- Genuineness of the Document in Question: If there is a dispute about whether a document is genuine, oral admissions concerning its contents may be relevant. For example, if someone admits that the document was forged or altered, this oral admission could be important in determining the authenticity of the document.
Example:
Imagine a case where A sues B over the terms of a contract, and the contract is a written document. During the lawsuit, B makes an oral admission to C, stating, “The contract actually says that I have to pay A ₹10,000 by the end of the month.”
- General Rule: Normally, this oral admission by B about the contract’s contents would not be admissible because the best evidence of the contract’s contents would be the contract itself. The court would expect A to present the contract document as primary evidence rather than relying on what B told C about it.
- Exception for Secondary Evidence: If A can show that the original contract has been lost or destroyed, and secondary evidence of the contract is allowed (e.g., a copy or an oral admission), then B’s statement to C about the contract’s contents might become relevant and admissible under this exception.
- Exception for Genuineness: Suppose B claims that the contract was forged or altered, and B orally admitted to C, “The document is a fake; I never agreed to those terms.” In this case, B’s oral admission about the contract’s genuineness would be relevant and could be used as evidence in court.
Significance:
Section 22 is important because it upholds the principle that the best evidence of a document’s contents is the document itself. This prevents parties from relying on potentially unreliable oral statements when the document is available. However, the section also provides flexibility by allowing oral admissions to be used in specific circumstances where the document cannot be produced or where the authenticity of the document is in dispute. This balance ensures that evidence related to documents is handled with care while allowing for exceptions when necessary to achieve justice.
