In addition, Section 48 of the Registration Act, 1908, provides that all non-will documents duly registered under this Act, relating to personal or real property, take effect against any order, arrangement or declaration concerning that property, unless the agreement or declaration was accompanied or shipped with the property. At the end of the day, all that can be said is that agreements, when they are oral, are still applicable, but are not generally recommended when the contract deals with large transactions and regulates relations between large corporations such as large commercial real estate, etc. Even if such oral agreements have already been entered into, applicants can prove the existence of essential elements of a contract and, by providing admissible evidence, the applicant can continue to appeal to the courts, as justice cannot be denied only if a written agreement is not available, if alternative evidence supports a complainant`s allegation. Perhaps this is the evidence that a person could provide to prove his or her right. Oral chords are risky and unsafe, because you don`t know when someone will come back in their own words. It is therefore difficult to prove these concrete words when an argument arises. That is why it is important that an oral agreement is ready to prove it in the future. Both parties should prove their verbal agreement so that it may be useful to prove their own words. Because of their risky nature, oral agreements are excluded as evidence under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, as a written agreement always prevails over an oral agreement. The authenticity of the written agreement will always be greater than the oral agreement. Contract against public order may be rejected by the court, even if this contract is advantageous to all parties to the contract – What are the considerations and objects that are legitimate and what non-Newar Marble Industries Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur, 1993 Cr. L.J. 1191 to 1197, 1198 [Raj.] – Agreement, including challenge or consideration against public order , illegal and unacknowledged – – – What is better and what can be more, an admission that the consideration or purpose of the composite agreement was the abstention of the House to sue the companies petitioning the infringement under Section 39 of the facts and that the House has turned the offence into a source of profit or benefit to itself.