Indian Evidence Law | Updated October 2026
Section 96 Evidence Act: Identifying One of Several Persons or Things | BSA Section 99
When a written description fits several people, places or things, but only one was intended, evidence of surrounding facts may identify the intended subject. This rule appears in Section 99 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Current law: BSA Section 99Earlier law: Evidence Act Section 96Section 99 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023) came into force on 1 July 2024. Its Section 99, headed Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons, provides:
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.
The rule permits evidence to identify the intended person or thing when the description is capable of referring to several candidates but the transaction concerns only one. It does not grant permission to rewrite an otherwise clear contractual term.
Former Section 96 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 96 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, titled Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons, expressed the same operative rule:
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.
For matters governed by the BSA, Section 99 is the corresponding current provision. The BSA also contains a repeal-and-savings provision concerning proceedings already pending on commencement, so the governing law in a particular proceeding should be checked.
Meaning: Ambiguity Arising from Existing Facts
The difficulty addressed here is commonly described as latent ambiguity: the words appear intelligible on their face, but the uncertainty emerges when they are applied to the real world. For example, a seller may own two objects fitting the same description, or a place name may refer to two different locations.
- More than one possible referent: The language can reasonably describe several persons or things.
- Only one intended: The wording and transaction cannot sensibly refer to all of them together.
- Identification, not alteration: Evidence is offered to determine which candidate was meant, not to replace the description with an unrelated subject.
- Relevant surrounding facts: Context, dealings, identification marks, location, communications or conduct may help identify the intended referent, subject to the court's assessment and other evidentiary rules.
The statute speaks of evidence of facts. It does not mean that every alleged oral assertion must automatically be admitted or accepted.
Illustrations in the Statute
Illustration (a): Two white horses
A agrees to sell B "my white horse" for one thousand rupees. A owns two white horses. Evidence may be given to show which horse the parties intended. This illustration appears in both the former Section 96 and current Section 99.
Illustration (b): Places with the same name
Former Section 96: A agrees to accompany B to Haidarabad. Evidence may show whether Haidarabad in the Deccan or Haidarabad in Sind was intended.
Current Section 99: A agrees to accompany B to Ramgarh. Evidence may show whether Ramgarh in Rajasthan or Ramgarh in Uttarakhand was intended.
The place names in the modern enactment's illustration have changed, but the underlying evidentiary principle remains the same.
How Section 99 Differs from Related Rules
Section 96 BSA (former Section 93 Evidence Act): If a document is ambiguous or defective on its face, evidence cannot be introduced merely to supply the missing meaning or defects in the manner prohibited by that section.
Section 97 BSA (former Section 94): If plain language accurately fits the existing facts, evidence cannot be used to say that it was meant to apply elsewhere.
Section 98 BSA (former Section 95): If plain language is unmeaning when applied to existing facts, evidence may show that it was used in a peculiar sense.
Section 99 BSA (former Section 96): If the language fits several persons or things but only one was intended, evidence may identify the correct one.
Section 100 BSA (former Section 97): A different situation arises when the wording fits parts of two sets of facts but fits neither completely; evidence may then identify which set was intended.
These provisions should be read together with Sections 94 and 95 BSA concerning documentary proof of terms and the exclusion of evidence of oral agreements.
Practical Application in Disputes
Property description
An agreement refers to "the shop at Market Road", but the seller owns two shops on that road. Documents identifying shop numbers, correspondence, and the parties' relevant dealings may assist in deciding which shop the agreement refers to.
Identifying a person
A document directs payment to "Mr. Sharma", but two persons of that name have dealings with the maker. Contextual evidence may be relevant to identifying the intended recipient, if the statutory conditions are met.
Courts still consider authenticity, relevance, admissibility and the weight of evidence. The provision does not automatically validate an uncertain transaction or excuse statutory formalities.
Frequently Asked Questions
What replaced Section 96 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Section 99 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is the corresponding provision.
Can oral evidence be used to identify a person or property mentioned in a document?
Evidence of surrounding facts may be given where the words could identify several candidates but were intended to identify only one, subject to the applicable evidentiary requirements.
Is this the same as correcting an ambiguous document?
No. Section 99 permits identification among candidates to whom the wording can apply; it does not generally permit filling gaps or changing express terms.
What is the difference between Section 98 and Section 99 BSA?
Section 98 concerns plain words that do not meaningfully fit existing facts. Section 99 concerns words that could fit several candidates, though only one was intended.
Official Legislation and Further Reading
Read the official Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 PDF, especially Sections 94 to 100, and consult the India Code legislation portal for the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and current legislative materials.
This article is general legal information. Application to a particular document depends on the evidence, applicable legislation and the facts of the dispute.