Frustrating Conundrum: Admissibility of Evidence Acquired in Breach of Contract

Yeh adaliya kadam ki hai! (It's a tricky situation!) Let's imagine you're a buyer and seller of a property. In a disputed contract, you want to admit evidence of a conversation between the parties where the terms were orally agreed upon. But the catch is - this conversation took place after one party (seller) had already breached the contract by not giving the agreed-upon possession of the property. Kya karoge? (What would you do?)

In my opinion, this evidence should NOT be admissible because it goes against the rule of no 'fresh' contracts in a dispute over an existing contract (as per sections 29 and 30 of the Indian Contract Act). The seller is trying to change the original terms after breaching it, just like a 'fresh' contract would do.