LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Documentary Evidence – Parol Evidence Rule – Admissibility of Evidence Contradicting Written Instrument
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The deed of gift is quite plain as to the persons the gift was made and for what purpose; the intention is clear; that intention cannot be contradicted, altered, added to or varied by oral evidence; Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act does not permit this; none of the circumstances stated in the proviso applies; to allow plaintiff to give evidence that they thought the association was incorporated would be inconsistent with the plain terms of the deed of gift.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The deed of gift, exhibit H, is quite plain as to the persons the gift was made and for what purpose. The intention is clear. That intention cannot be contradicted, altered, added to or varied by oral evidence. Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act does not permit this. None of the circumstances stated in the proviso applies. To allow the plaintiff in the present case to give evidence that he thought that the association was incorporated would be inconsistent with the plain terms of the deed of gift."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
[This is a duplicate of Principle 456] The parol evidence rule bars oral evidence contradicting, altering, adding to, or varying clear written deed terms. When deed clearly states gift recipients, gift purpose, and donor’s intention, oral evidence cannot contradict these terms. Section 131(1) Evidence Act codifies this with limited exceptions in the proviso (fraud, mistake, illegality, etc.). Here, no proviso exceptions applied. Donor cannot testify to different intentions than deed states, claim misunderstanding about recipients’ status, or vary deed terms through oral evidence. “Inconsistent with plain terms” means deed clearly identifies unincorporated association, oral testimony about believing it was incorporated contradicts plain terms, and parol evidence rule bars such testimony. This serves deed finality, preventing donors from rewriting gifts after execution, and protecting donees’ reliance on deed terms. If deed is plain and unambiguous, no oral evidence of different intentions is admissible. The principle prevents post-execution attempts to vary clear deed terms through convenient “misunderstandings” contradicting plain language.