§ SECTION 98 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER VI — EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts

The first door the chapter opens. Where a document’s language is plain but fits no existing fact — a latent ambiguity — evidence may be given to show it was used in a peculiar sense.

How to read Section 98

Plain but pointing at nothing → explain by evidence.

The trigger

Language plain in itself but unmeaning against the facts.

The opening

Evidence may be given of a peculiar sense.

The limit

Only where the words fit nothing — not to unsettle a fitting document.

The bare Act

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

Section 98 · verbatim

When language used in a document is plain in itself, but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense.

Illustration

In short: this is the turning point of the interpretation run. Sections 96 and 97 shut evidence out — a document unclear on its face cannot be cured, and one whose plain words fit the facts exactly cannot be re-argued. Section 98 is different: the words are plain, yet when you look at the world they point to nothing — the seller has ‘a house in Kolkata’ but owns none there. Rather than let the clause fail, the law treats this as a latent ambiguity and lets evidence in to show that the words were used in a peculiar sense — here, that ‘Kolkata’ was meant to denote the seller’s house at Howrah, as the buyer’s possession confirms. The escape is narrow: it operates only when the plain words correspond to no existing thing.

→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 95 — the first of the latent-ambiguity rules that admit evidence.

Glossary

plain in itself

Clear on its face — but here it points to nothing real.

unmeaning in reference to existing facts

The plain words fit no actual thing.

peculiar sense

A special, non-literal meaning the parties actually used.

latent ambiguity

Uncertainty that emerges only when words meet the facts — curable.

execution of the deed

The making of the deed — from when B held the Howrah house.

evidence may be given

The door opens — unlike §§ 96–97.

The picture

Plain words, no match — evidence supplies the meaning.

The section, part by part

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

The ruleThe shift

the rulePlain words that fit nothing — evidence rescues them

In one lineWhere a document’s language is plain in itself but unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to show it was used in a peculiar sense.

When language used in a document is plain in itself, but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts,plain words that FIT NOTHINGwhen a document’s words are plain but match no existing fact (they are ‘unmeaning’ as applied)…

evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense.→ evidence IS allowed (a peculiar sense)…evidence may be given to show the words were used in a peculiar sense — what they were really meant to denote.

ExampleA deed sells “my house in Kolkata”, but the seller has no Kolkata house — only one at Howrah, which the buyer has occupied since the deed. The court may take that evidence to read the words as meaning the Howrah house.

✗ Not thisThis opens only because the plain words fit no existing thing (a latent ambiguity). It is the opposite of § 97 (words fit perfectly → no evidence) and § 96 (unclear on the face → no cure). Here, evidence rescues an otherwise meaningless description.

the shiftThe first section that lets evidence in

In one line§ 98 is the turning point: where §§ 96–97 barred evidence, here the plain words are unmeaning against the facts — a latent ambiguity — so evidence may show the peculiar sense they carry.

A sells to B, by deed, “my house in Kolkata”. A had no house in Kolkata, but it appears that he had a house at Howrah, of which B had been in possession since the execution of the deed. These facts may be proved to show that the deed related to the house at Howrah.‘house in Kolkata’ → really the Howrah house‘my house in Kolkata’ — but A had no Kolkata house, only one at Howrah (which B has held since the deed) — these facts may be proved to show the deed meant the Howrah house.

Example‘Kolkata’ is plain, but there is no such house; the surrounding facts (the Howrah house, B’s possession) show the word was used to mean it — a peculiar sense the court may adopt.

✗ Not this‘Peculiar sense’ is not a licence to rewrite a fitting document. It applies only where the plain words correspond to nothing; then evidence supplies the sense actually used.

Connected provisions

§ 97

IEA 1872, § 95

Carried forward — document unmeaning in reference to facts.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 98: Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts