§ SECTION 97 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER VI — EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Exclusion of evidence against application of document to existing facts

When a document’s language is plain in itself and fits the existing facts accurately, no evidence may be given to show it was not meant to apply to those facts. Plain words that fit govern.

How to read Section 97

Plain and fitting → no second-guessing.

The trigger

Language plain in itself and applies accurately to the facts.

The bar

No evidence that it was not meant to apply to those facts.

The contrast

Where words do not fit (latent) — evidence is admitted.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — the rule and its illustration.

Section 97 · verbatim

When language used in a document is plain in itself, and when it applies accurately to existing facts, evidence may not be given to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts.

Illustration

In short: § 96 dealt with words unclear on their face; § 97 deals with words that are perfectly clear and, moreover, match the facts exactly. In that happy case there is nothing to interpret — and so no party may lead evidence to argue that, despite the plain and fitting words, something else was really intended. If a deed sells ‘my estate at Rampur of 100 bighas’ and the seller has precisely such an estate, the description attaches to it, full stop; evidence that a different, differently-sized estate was meant is shut out. The section only bites where the fit is accurate: if the words fit no existing thing, or fit several, a latent ambiguity arises and the later sections let evidence resolve it.

→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 94 — exclusion of evidence against the application of a plain document to the facts.

Glossary

plain in itself

Clear on its face — open to only one meaning.

applies accurately

Fits one existing fact / thing exactly.

existing facts

The real-world things the words point to (an estate, a person…).

not meant to apply

The excluded argument — that plain, fitting words meant otherwise.

latent ambiguity

Where plain words fit nothing or several — evidence then allowed.

bigha

A traditional unit of land area (the estate’s size in the illustration).

The picture

Plain words that fit — nothing left to interpret.

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

The ruleThe trilogy

the rulePlain words that fit are taken at face value

In one lineWhere a document’s language is plain in itself and applies accurately to existing facts, no evidence may be given to show it was not meant to apply to those facts.

When language used in a document is plain in itself, and when it applies accurately to existing facts,plain language that fits the facts exactlywhen a document’s language is plain and fits the existing facts accurately…

evidence may not be given to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts.→ NO evidence it meant something else…no evidence may be given to show it was not meant to apply to those facts. Plain words that fit are taken at face value.

ExampleA deed sells “my estate at Rampur, 100 bighas”. A has exactly one such estate. You cannot lead evidence that a different, differently-sized estate was really meant — the plain words fit, so they govern.

✗ Not thisThis applies where the words are plain and fit accurately. If the words fit nothing, or fit more than one thing (a latent ambiguity), evidence is allowed — that is the following sections.

the trilogyWhere § 97 sits between patent and latent

In one lineThree situations: patent ambiguity (§ 96 — no cure); plain and fitting language (§ 97 — no re-opening); and latent ambiguity (words fit nothing or several — evidence allowed, ahead).

A sells to B, by deed, “my estate at Rampur containing one hundred bighas”. A has an estate at Rampur containing one hundred bighas. Evidence may not be given of the fact that the estate meant to be sold was one situated at a different place and of a different size.the Rampur estate that fits → no other meant‘my estate at Rampur, 100 bighas’ — and A has exactly such an estate — no evidence that a different estate was meant.

ExampleThe Rampur deed fits A’s only such estate — so its application is settled; but if A had had two estates at Rampur, the description would fit both, and evidence would be admitted to say which (a latent ambiguity).

✗ Not this§ 97 shuts the door only when the words fit perfectly. It does not bar evidence about a document’s application where the words do not neatly fit the facts.

Connected provisions

§ 96

IEA 1872, § 94

Carried forward — plain document applied to the facts.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 97: Exclusion of evidence against application of document to existing facts