§ SECTION 99 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER VI — EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons

A description that fits more than one, but was meant for one. Where the words could apply to any one of several persons or things but only one was meant, evidence may be given to show which.

How to read Section 99

Several candidates, one intended → evidence chooses.

The trigger

Words could fit any one of several — but only one was meant.

The opening

Evidence may be given of facts showing which.

The limit

Only to pick among the candidates — not to vary a term.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — the rule and two illustrations.

Section 99 · verbatim

When the facts are such that the language used might have been meant to apply to any one, and could not have been meant to apply to more than one, of several persons or things, evidence may be given of facts which show which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to.

Illustrations

(a) A agrees to sell to B, for one thousand rupees, “my white horse”. A has two white horses. Evidence may be given of facts which show which of them was meant.

(b) A agrees to accompany B to Ramgarh. Evidence may be given of facts showing whether Ramgarh in Rajasthan or Ramgarh in Uttarakhand was meant.

In short: the second kind of latent ambiguity. In § 98 the plain words fit nothing; here they fit too much — the description answers to several persons or things, though the parties can only have meant one. ‘My white horse’ when the seller owns two; ‘Ramgarh’ when there are two towns of that name. Because the writing itself cannot tell them apart, the law lets evidence in to show which of the candidates was intended. The power is limited to selecting among the things the words genuinely fit — it is not a route to introduce a thing outside the description, nor to alter the bargain’s terms.

→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 96 — the latent ambiguity of an over-inclusive description.

Glossary

apply to one only of several

The words fit several candidates, though only one was meant.

latent ambiguity

Uncertainty that surfaces only when words meet the facts.

might have been meant

The description is capable of fitting each candidate.

could not have been meant to apply to more than one

Only one can have been intended.

which…it was intended to apply to

The single question evidence answers.

§ 98 vs § 99

Fits nothing (98) versus fits several (99).

The picture

Two candidates, one intended — evidence decides.

The section, part by part

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

The ruleTwo latent kinds

the ruleFits several, meant one — evidence picks which

In one lineWhere the words could apply to any one, but not more than one, of several persons or things, evidence may be given of facts showing which was intended.

When the facts are such that the language used might have been meant to apply to any one, and could not have been meant to apply to more than one, of several persons or things,a description that fits SEVERAL (means one)when the words could fit any one — but only one — of several persons or things…

evidence may be given of facts which show which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to.→ evidence IS allowed: WHICH one was meant…evidence may be given of facts showing which one was intended.

ExampleA sells “my white horse” but owns two. The description fits both, yet only one was meant — so evidence may be led to show which horse the parties intended.

✗ Not thisThis is latent ambiguity of multiple fit (fits several). It is the sibling of § 98 (fits none). Evidence identifies the one intended — it cannot change a term, nor operate where the words fit only one (§ 97).

two latent kindsFits nothing (§ 98) · fits several (§ 99)

In one lineThe latent ambiguities both admit evidence: where plain words fit nothing (§ 98 → peculiar sense) and where they fit several (§ 99 → which one). Here, evidence shows which of the candidates was intended.

(a) A agrees to sell to B, for one thousand rupees, “my white horse”. A has two white horses. Evidence may be given of facts which show which of them was meant.(a) two white horses → which one?‘my white horse’ — A has two — evidence may show which was meant.

(b) A agrees to accompany B to Ramgarh. Evidence may be given of facts showing whether Ramgarh in Rajasthan or Ramgarh in Uttarakhand was meant.(b) two Ramgarhs → which town?‘Ramgarh’ — there are two — evidence may show whether the Rajasthan or Uttarakhand Ramgarh was meant.

ExampleIllustration (b): ‘Ramgarh’ names two real towns — the words fit both, so evidence may show whether the Rajasthan or Uttarakhand Ramgarh was intended.

✗ Not thisEvidence here identifies which of the candidates — it does not let you pick a thing that is not among them, nor vary the price or other terms.

Connected provisions

§ 98

IEA 1872, § 96

Carried forward — language applying to one of several.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 99: Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons