Practice paper — BSA Chapter VI — Of The Exclusion Of Oral Evidence By Documentary Evidence

1.Under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, what is the general rule about proving the terms of a contract that have been reduced to the form of a document?

• (A) Oral evidence may be given in proof of the terms if it assists the court.
• (B) No evidence shall be given except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents where secondary evidence is admissible.
• (C) Only written summaries of the document prepared by the parties are admissible.
• (D) The parties may prove the terms by witness testimony without producing the document.

2.When there are more original documents than one for the same instrument, what does Section 94 (Explanation 2) require?

• (A) One original only need be proved.
• (B) All originals must be proved together.
• (C) None of the originals need be produced if copies are available.
• (D) The party must prove the original that is most favorable to them.

3.A contract is contained across several letters between the parties. According to Section 94 and its illustrations, which of the following is correct about proving the contract?

• (A) Any one of the letters may be proved and the rest can be supplied by oral evidence.
• (B) Only the earliest letter containing terms must be proved.
• (C) All the letters in which the contract is contained must be proved.
• (D) Only the letter relied upon by the plaintiff need be proved.

4.Section 94 (Exception 1) deals with a public officer required by law to be appointed in writing. If it is shown that a particular person has acted as such officer, what is the effect on the requirement to prove the writing of appointment?

• (A) The writing must still be produced and proved in all cases.
• (B) The writing need be proved only if challenged by the other party.
• (C) The writing can be proved by oral testimony of witnesses to the appointment.
• (D) The writing by which he is appointed need not be proved.

5.Which statement best describes the rule in Explanation 3 of Section 94 together with illustrations (d) and (e)?

• (A) No oral evidence is admissible to contradict any fact stated in a document.
• (B) Oral evidence is admissible only to explain ambiguous terms of a written contract.
• (C) Oral evidence may be admitted to prove facts other than the written terms or to show that a recited fact in the document did not actually occur.
• (D) Oral evidence is admissible to vary the written terms of a contract if both parties agree.

6.What is the general rule under Section 95 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 regarding oral evidence when the terms of a contract or other disposition of property have been proved according to section 94?

• (A) No evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from its terms.
• (B) Oral evidence may be admitted freely to explain or vary the written terms if offered by either party.
• (C) Oral evidence is admissible only to prove the intention of the parties, not to alter terms.
• (D) Oral evidence is admissible when supported by two or more witnesses.

7.Which of the following facts is expressly permitted to be proved notwithstanding the general bar in Section 95?

• (A) That a particular ship was orally excepted from an insurance policy covering goods “in ships from Kolkata to Visakhapatnam.”
• (B) Fraud (or other vitiating factors such as intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity, failure of consideration, or mistake).
• (C) An oral agreement that adds terms to a written contract which are inconsistent with the written terms.
• (D) A contemporaneous oral statement intended to vary the written price term.

8.When considering whether the proviso permitting proof of a separate oral agreement (as to a matter on which a document is silent and not inconsistent with its terms) applies, what factor does Section 95 require the Court to have regard to?

• (A) The degree of formality of the document.
• (B) The subjective intention of the parties at the time of contracting.
• (C) Whether third parties were aware of the oral agreement.
• (D) The length of negotiations that led to the document.

9.Can the existence of a distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify a written contract be proved under Section 95 if the contract has been registered according to law?

• (A) Yes — a subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify may always be proved.
• (B) Yes — but only if both parties expressly confirm the oral modification in court.
• (C) Yes — but only if the oral modification is not inconsistent with the written contract.
• (D) No — proof of a distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify is excluded where the contract is required by law to be in writing or has been registered.

10.Which statement correctly describes the position of Section 95 regarding a separate oral agreement that constitutes a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under a written contract?

• (A) It cannot be proved because it would vary or contradict the written terms of the contract.
• (B) It may be proved only if it does not contradict the written contract.
• (C) It may be proved (the section expressly permits proof of an oral agreement constituting a condition precedent).
• (D) It may be proved only when the written document is informal and unsigned.

11.What does Section 96 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, prohibit?

• (A) Giving evidence of facts to show the meaning of, or to supply defects in, a document whose language is on its face ambiguous or defective.
• (B) Giving any evidence to contradict a written contract under any circumstances.
• (C) Admitting parol evidence to vary a clear and unambiguous written document.
• (D) Allowing witnesses to testify about the character of parties mentioned in a document.

12.Illustration (a) states: A agrees in writing to sell a horse to B for “one lakh rupees or one lakh fifty thousand rupees”. Under Section 96, can evidence be given to show which price was intended?

• (A) Yes, if both parties testify that one price was intended.
• (B) Only expert testimony is admissible to determine the price.
• (C) No, evidence cannot be given to show which price was to be given.
• (D) Yes, because prior negotiations always clarify such ambiguities.

13.A deed contains blanks. According to Section 96, which statement is correct about admissibility of evidence to fill those blanks?

• (A) Evidence may be given to fill the blanks if a later written agreement confirms the filling.
• (B) Evidence cannot be given of facts which would show how the blanks were meant to be filled.
• (C) Evidence may be given only if the blanks are initialed by both parties.
• (D) Evidence can be given to show how blanks were meant to be filled, but only by parties to the deed.

14.If the language of a document is ambiguous on its face, may evidence of surrounding facts be admitted to explain its meaning under Section 96?

• (A) Yes, surrounding facts are always admissible to explain meaning.
• (B) Yes, but only if both parties consent in court.
• (C) Only if the ambiguity affects a statutory requirement.
• (D) No; the provision forbids giving evidence of facts which would show its meaning or supply its defects when the ambiguity or defect is on the face of the document.

15.Does Section 96 bar evidence to show the meaning of a document when the document's language is not ambiguous on its face?

• (A) No; the bar applies only when the language is on its face ambiguous or defective.
• (B) Yes; it bars such evidence in all cases whether or not the ambiguity appears on the face.
• (C) Yes, but only for contracts relating to sale of goods.
• (D) No; it applies only to deeds and not to other documents.

16.What rule does Section 97 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establish?

• (A) When the language of a document is plain and applies accurately to existing facts, evidence may not be given to show it was not meant to apply to those facts.
• (B) All extrinsic evidence is always inadmissible to contradict a document.
• (C) Oral statements can never alter the terms of a written document.
• (D) Documents dealing with land cannot be challenged by any evidence.

17.In the illustration under Section 97 (A sells to B, by deed, “my estate at Rampur containing one hundred bighas” and A has such an estate), which of the following pieces of evidence is expressly disallowed by the provision?

• (A) Evidence that A actually owned an estate at Rampur containing one hundred bighas.
• (B) Evidence that the estate meant to be sold was one situated at a different place and of a different size.
• (C) Evidence showing the deed was duly executed and delivered.
• (D) Evidence of the physical description of the estate at Rampur.

18.If the language of a document is ambiguous (not plain), can evidence be given to show it was not meant to apply to existing facts?

• (A) No, evidence is never admissible even if the language is ambiguous.
• (B) Only if the parties both agree to admit such evidence.
• (C) Yes, because Section 97 bars evidence only when the language is plain and applies accurately to existing facts.
• (D) Only in transactions involving real property.

19.Given the illustration in Section 97, may a party introduce evidence that the seller intended to sell a different estate when the deed plainly describes "my estate at Rampur containing one hundred bighas" and such an estate exists?

• (A) Yes, such intention evidence is admissible to correct the deed.
• (B) Yes, but only if the seller testifies to a mistake.
• (C) Yes, if supported by contemporaneous external documents.
• (D) No; evidence may not be given to show that the plain description was not meant to apply to the existing facts.

20.Which combination of conditions must be satisfied for Section 97 to exclude evidence?

• (A) The language must be plain alone; it need not apply accurately to existing facts.
• (B) The document must apply accurately to existing facts alone; plainness of language is irrelevant.
• (C) Both that the language used in the document is plain in itself and that it applies accurately to existing facts.
• (D) Section 97 excludes evidence in every case where the document is written, regardless of content.

21.Under Section 98 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, when may evidence be given to show that words in a document were used in a 'peculiar sense'?

• (A) When the language used in the document is plain in itself but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts.
• (B) Whenever the language is ambiguous or uncertain and requires explanation.
• (C) Only where the parties have expressly agreed in writing about the peculiar meaning.
• (D) In all cases to vary or contradict the plain terms of a document.

22.In the illustration under Section 98, which of the following may be proved to show the deed related to the house at Howrah?

• (A) That A owned a house in Kolkata as described in the deed.
• (B) That A had no house in Kolkata but had a house at Howrah of which B had been in possession since the execution of the deed.
• (C) That the deed was void because it named Kolkata.
• (D) That B purchased a different property without reference to the deed.

23.Does Section 98 apply when the language of a document is ambiguous (i.e., not plain) and requires interpretation?

• (A) Yes — it applies to all cases of interpretation of language.
• (B) Yes — but only if there is contemporaneous external evidence.
• (C) No — the section applies where the language is plain in itself but unmeaning in reference to existing facts.
• (D) Only if the parties had previously used the words in a peculiar sense.

24.Which of the following factual proofs is explicitly illustrated as permissible under Section 98 to show the deed concerned the Howrah house?

• (A) Only proof that A had no house in Kolkata.
• (B) Only proof that B had been in possession since execution of the deed.
• (C) Proof that the deed explicitly mentioned the Howrah house by name.
• (D) Proof that A had no house in Kolkata and that he had a house at Howrah of which B had been in possession since the execution of the deed.

25.Regarding the phrase 'existing facts' in Section 98, which statement is best supported by the provision text?

• (A) It clearly refers to facts existing at the time the document was executed.
• (B) The provision does not specify the time to which 'existing facts' refers.
• (C) It clearly refers only to facts existing at the time of the suit or dispute.
• (D) It refers only to facts existing when the document was drafted, not when signed.

26.What does Section 99 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 permit?

• (A) Permits evidence of facts showing which one of several persons or things the language was intended to apply to
• (B) Permits evidence to change the terms of a written contract where language is ambiguous
• (C) Permits treating identical things as jointly intended when the language is vague
• (D) Prohibits any extrinsic evidence to identify persons or things mentioned in language

27.Under what factual condition does Section 99 allow evidence to be given?

• (A) When the language could have been meant to apply to more than one of several persons or things
• (B) When the language might have been meant to apply to any one, and could not have been meant to apply to more than one
• (C) When the language is entirely clear and applies to a single person
• (D) Only when both parties expressly consent to introduce external facts

28.Which of the following best captures the point illustrated by the example of A agreeing to sell to B 'my white horse' where A has two white horses?

• (A) The agreement is void because the subject matter is uncertain
• (B) Both white horses are sold to B jointly for the stated price
• (C) Evidence may be given of facts to show which of the two white horses was meant
• (D) The price must be apportioned between the two horses

29.If a location name used in an agreement could equally refer to Ramgarh in Rajasthan or Ramgarh in Uttarakhand, and it is possible the parties meant both places jointly, may evidence be given under Section 99?

• (A) Yes — evidence may always be given where more than one place shares the same name
• (B) Yes — but only if one party files an affidavit
• (C) Yes — evidence may be given to prove joint intention as to both places
• (D) No — Section 99 permits evidence only when the language could not have been meant to apply to more than one

30.Which logical requirement is essential for Section 99 to operate?

• (A) Either that the language might have been meant to apply to any one, or that it could not apply to more than one
• (B) That both: the language might have been meant to apply to any one, and it could not have been meant to apply to more than one
• (C) That the language is ambiguous in form irrespective of whether it could apply to more than one
• (D) That the parties have expressly stated that extrinsic facts may be considered

31.According to Section 100 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, when may evidence be given?

• (A) When the language used applies wholly and correctly to one existing set of facts.
• (B) When the language used applies partly to one set of existing facts and partly to another set, but the whole of it does not apply correctly to either.
• (C) When the parties disagree about the price or consideration stated in an instrument.
• (D) When a written document is complete and unambiguous on its face.

32.What situation does the illustration accompanying Section 100 exemplify?

• (A) A has land at X but no other land; hence the description is inapplicable and evidence is barred.
• (B) A has land at X and that same land is in the occupation of Y, so the description fits exactly.
• (C) A has land at X but not in the occupation of Y, and also has land in the occupation of Y which is not at X; evidence may be given to show which he meant to sell.
• (D) The illustration shows that evidence is never admissible to resolve location disputes.

33.Which of the following scenarios would fall within Section 100 so that evidence may be given?

• (A) A contract describes 'my field at P occupied by Q'; in fact there is a field at P not occupied by Q, and a different field occupied by Q not at P.
• (B) A description in an instrument exactly matches a single, existing parcel of land with no conflicting facts.
• (C) The language in a document applies wholly and correctly to one of multiple possible properties.
• (D) There are no existing facts at all matching any part of the language used in the instrument.

34.If the language used in an instrument applies wholly and correctly to one set of existing facts, may evidence be given under Section 100?

• (A) Yes, evidence may always be given under Section 100 regardless of complete applicability.
• (B) Yes, but only with the consent of both parties to the instrument.
• (C) Yes, but only if the court finds the language was intended to apply elsewhere.
• (D) No, because Section 100 applies only when the whole of the language does not apply correctly to either of the two sets of facts.

35.Does Section 100, as worded, permit evidence to determine intended application when the language applies partly to one of several (more than two) existing sets of facts?

• (A) Yes — it expressly extends to any number of competing sets of facts.
• (B) No — it speaks specifically of one of two sets of existing facts and does not address more than two.
• (C) Yes — but only when there are exactly three competing sets of facts.
• (D) No — it requires the language to be totally inapplicable to all existing facts before evidence can be given.

36.Which of the following is NOT a type of matter to which evidence may be given under Section 101 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

• (A) Foreign expressions
• (B) Technical expressions
• (C) A party's future intention
• (D) Abbreviations

37.Section 101 permits evidence to be given for which of the following purposes?

• (A) To show the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible characters
• (B) To prove the legal validity of a document
• (C) To establish the credibility of a witness generally
• (D) To alter the written terms of a clear and legible contract

38.A, a sculptor, agrees to sell to B 'all my mods'. A owns both models and modelling tools. Under Section 101, is evidence admissible to determine whether 'mods' meant models or modelling tools?

• (A) No; the provision applies only where characters are illegible
• (B) Yes; the provision expressly allows evidence to show which meaning was intended in such ambiguous usage
• (C) Yes, but only if both parties consent to the evidence
• (D) No; the provision applies only to foreign expressions, not ambiguous English words

39.Does Section 101 permit evidence to show the meaning of local and regional expressions used in a document?

• (A) No, the section is limited to obsolete expressions only
• (B) Only if the expression is also an abbreviation
• (C) Only for foreign and technical expressions, not local ones
• (D) Yes; local and regional expressions are explicitly included among matters for which evidence may be given

40.Which of the following best describes the limitation of Section 101 regarding the use of evidence?

• (A) It permits evidence only to show the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible characters and specified expressions, not to prove broader matters like parties' subjective intentions beyond meaning
• (B) It permits evidence to prove any factual dispute about the transaction, including motives and intentions
• (C) It allows evidence to rewrite or replace the words of a document if a party proves a different intention
• (D) It permits evidence only when the document is wholly foreign language and not in the official language

41.Under Section 102, who may give evidence of a contemporaneous agreement varying the terms of a document?

• (A) The parties to the document
• (B) Persons who are not parties to the document, or their representatives in interest
• (C) Only witnesses named in the document
• (D) Any person, whether party or not

42.Can the parties to a written contract themselves give evidence to prove a contemporaneous oral agreement that varies the contract under Section 102?

• (A) Yes, always
• (B) Yes, but only if the agreement is reduced to writing later
• (C) No, the provision allows only non-parties or their representatives in interest
• (D) Yes, but only with the court's permission

43.In the illustration to Section 102, A and B make a written contract and a contemporaneous oral agreement; who may show the oral agreement if it affects his interests?

• (A) Only A or B (the contracting parties)
• (B) Only a court-appointed expert
• (C) C, if the oral agreement affects C's interests
• (D) No one can show the oral agreement

44.Does Section 102 permit a representative in interest of a non-party to give evidence of a contemporaneous agreement varying the terms of a document?

• (A) Yes, a representative in interest of a non-party may give such evidence
• (B) No, representatives are excluded; only the non-party personally may give evidence
• (C) Yes, but only if the representative is named in the document
• (D) No, only written subsequent agreements can be shown

45.Which of the following best describes who is excluded from giving evidence of a contemporaneous agreement varying a document under Section 102?

• (A) Representatives of non-parties are excluded
• (B) Representatives of the parties to the document are excluded from this provision
• (C) All third parties are excluded unless expressly named
• (D) The provision makes no distinction between parties and non-parties

46.According to Section 103 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, what is the effect of this Chapter on the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 relating to construction of wills?

• (A) It repeals those provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• (B) It does not affect those provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• (C) It replaces those provisions with new rules in this Chapter.
• (D) It limits those provisions only to wills executed before 1925.

47.Which statute's provisions are expressly saved by Section 103 as to the construction of wills?

• (A) The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925).
• (B) The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• (C) The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
• (D) The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

48.If a provision in this Chapter concerning production of evidence conflicts with a provision of the Indian Succession Act about the construction of wills, which statement follows from Section 103?

• (A) The provision in this Chapter will automatically override the Indian Succession Act.
• (B) Both provisions are rendered inoperative where there is any conflict.
• (C) The Indian Succession Act provision as to construction of wills is not affected by this Chapter.
• (D) The conflict must be resolved by a court amending the Indian Succession Act.

49.Does Section 103 permit this Chapter to alter or modify the rules in the Indian Succession Act concerning construction of wills?

• (A) Yes, it expressly authorises modification of those rules.
• (B) Yes, but only if the affected wills are executed after 2023.
• (C) Only where the modification is expressly adopted by state rules.
• (D) No, the Chapter shall not be taken to affect those provisions.

50.Which description best captures the scope of the saving in Section 103?

• (A) It preserves all provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in their entirety.
• (B) It preserves only those provisions of the Indian Succession Act that relate to the construction of wills.
• (C) It preserves the Indian Succession Act provisions except those concerning production and effect of evidence.
• (D) It preserves provisions of any statute that deal with wills.