Meghana Killampalli, B.A-LLB, Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Vishakhapatnam
ABSTRACT
In 2021 the Supreme Court, the three-judge bench consisting of Chief justice N V Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justices Aniruddha Bose, In the case of Mangala Waman Karandikar v. Prakash Damodar, the court recently reaffirmed the Parol evidence rule. The court gave explication of how to interpret a contract. The case revolves around the written agreement between the parties and the desideratum of interpretation of the statues. The case was on of a kind as it raised the question of law “whether the agreement between the parties was a license to conduct a business in the premises or whether it was to run the business in the suit premises by the respondents which was owned by the owners?” This case was remarkable as it filled the vacuum of law by interpreting the status becoming a landmark judgement. The best evidence rule applies to documentary evidence, which means that original papers must be supplied unless there is a good reason not to. It is an essential part of contract agreement in day to day lives and the credibility of the documentary evidence is comparatively higher than other types of evidence with certain level of presumptions laid down by the Act regarding the authenticity of the documents.
While interpreting the contract conditions, the Supreme Court further expanded the scope of Section 95 and Section 92 proviso 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The legislation pertaining to the admission of extrinsic evidence as an assistance to the construction of a document in circumstances where it is required to find out how the document relates to the existing facts is laid forth in proviso 6 of Section 92 of the act. Relevant elements such as the parties' intentions should be taken into account when reaching a decision based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Comments