In the case of T Jayaram vs. Naidu. Yasodha and Ors in 2007, C.M.P.No 1538 of the Madras High Court in 2006, it was a matter of reducing certain benefits. The court, referring to Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, stated that the verbal agreement for sale is also valid and also enforceable by the courts. The main point is that the burden of proof rests with the person asserting the right to prove the existence of such an agreement. In this case, the applicant did not demonstrate the existence of an oral agreement. It is necessary for a person to have evidence to prove the existence of an oral agreement in order to prove it, whether through a witness or something. The applicant also did not disclose the date of oral consent to the response message they sent to the respondents. This could have been evidence, but the complainants were not able to do so.
It is therefore established that there was no oral agreement. If an oral contract does not interfere with one or more elements of a valid contract, it is likely that a court will declare the agreement inconclusive and unenforceable. Many states have written provisions for certain treaties that believe that oral agreements are insufficient.  At trial, the grievor placed considerable weight on an “affidavit” signed by the respondent at Douglasdale Police Station on January 15, 2010. The plaintiff was present when this document was signed by the defendant, and he interprets this document as a support of his version that there was an agreement between the parties, as he claimed. The document read as follows: 9 The evidence in the immediate action is conclusive, clear and binding, so as to leave no reasonable doubt that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a verbal agreement in which the defendant would give the plaintiff an interest in the lease if the plaintiff found someone to break the lease. The applicant fully completed his part of the contract by finding a portion that drilled the lease. We therefore conclude that the applicant and the defendant entered into an oral contract, as the applicant claimed, and the court did not err in that finding.
 The applicant stated at trial that he and the accused, who was then his daughter-in-law, had agreed to acquire a property in Cosmo City (hereafter the property) which was registered in his name and would therefore be heard from him. The idea, according to the applicant, is that it would be an investment of both and that the opportunity had been noticed by the applicant`s involvement in the construction industry. The purchase price of the property should be guaranteed by a mortgage from the defendant through the property for the benefit of First National Bank. After acquiring the property, the applicant, he claims, would make certain improvements to the property and install annexes for which, in the event of the sale of the property by the defendant, he would be compensated for the actual costs of the improvements and the construction of the outbuildings. With regard to this agreement, as the applicant asserts, he would be entitled to one and/or all of the rent paid by the tenants in the outbuildings, which consisted of three back rooms. In order to avoid costly litigation, contracting parties should ensure that all essential conditions are expressly agreed in a legally binding contract. If certain essential conditions are lacking, but the parties clearly intend to be bound by their agreement and to act, the court will have an interest in finding an enforceable agreement.