Section 97 Evidence Act: Applying Document Language to Two Sets of Facts
A document may describe two different properties or situations imperfectly. The law allows evidence of surrounding facts to identify which one the document was intended to describe.
Section 100 BSA, 2023: Statutory rule
The heading of Section 100 is "Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies."
When the language used applies partly to one set of existing facts, and partly to another set of existing facts, but the whole of it does not apply correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply.
In plain language, where different parts of a document's description point to two different real-world subjects, and neither subject matches the entire description, a court may receive evidence identifying the subject intended by the parties. This is a rule about applying words to facts, not a general licence to replace written terms.
Original statutory illustration: Land at X occupied by Y
A agrees to sell to B "my land at X in the occupation of Y". A has land at X, but not in the occupation of Y, and he has land in the occupation of Y but it is not at X. Evidence may be given of facts showing which he meant to sell.
The phrase "at X" points to one parcel of land; "in the occupation of Y" points to another. Neither parcel satisfies both descriptions. Evidence about the negotiations, property records, possession and surrounding circumstances may help determine which parcel was intended, subject to admissibility and proof.
When evidence may be given
- A document describes an identifiable subject: for example, land, a building, goods or another person or thing.
- Two sets of existing facts are relevant: part of the wording matches one set and another part matches the other.
- Neither set fully matches: the document's complete description is inaccurate when applied to either set.
- The evidence resolves identification: the purpose is to show which of the two subjects the document refers to, rather than to create a new agreement.
Evidence may include admissible records of ownership, maps, survey information, correspondence, possession records, relevant conduct or testimony. Whether particular material can be admitted and how much weight it carries remain questions for the court under the applicable evidence rules.
Practical applications
1. Incorrect survey number and correct boundaries
A sale deed mentions a survey number associated with one parcel but boundaries corresponding to a different parcel. If each description partly matches different existing properties, evidence of survey maps, title records and the parties' dealings may help establish which parcel was intended.
2. Building name and tenant details
A lease identifies premises by a building name corresponding to one property and a tenant description corresponding to another. Where neither property fits the whole description, admissible surrounding facts may assist identification.
3. Goods identified by model and serial number
A written agreement identifies equipment by a model belonging to one machine and a serial number belonging to another. Evidence of inspection, delivery records or communications may clarify which machine the agreement concerns.
These are explanatory examples, not statutory illustrations or assurances of how any specific dispute will be decided.
Related provisions: Interpreting documentary language
| Earlier Evidence Act | Current BSA | Subject |
|---|---|---|
| Section 91 | Section 94 | Proof of terms reduced to documentary form |
| Section 92 | Section 95 | Exclusion of oral agreements varying written terms, subject to provisos |
| Section 93 | Section 96 | Facially ambiguous or defective documents |
| Section 94 | Section 97 | Clear words accurately applying to existing facts |
| Section 95 | Section 98 | Words clear on their face but unmeaning against existing facts |
| Section 96 | Section 99 | Words capable of identifying one of several persons or things |
| Section 97 | Section 100 | Two partly matching sets of facts |
| Section 98 | Section 101 | Illegible, technical, local and unusual expressions |
These rules work together. For example, Section 93 of the old Evidence Act (BSA Section 96) concerns an ambiguity apparent on the face of a document; Section 97 of the old Act (BSA Section 100) instead concerns language that becomes problematic when matched against two sets of existing facts.
Read the complete Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, on India Code and consult the Indian Evidence Act guide for the earlier legal framework.
Frequently asked questions
Which provision replaces Section 97 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Section 100 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is the corresponding current provision.
Can oral evidence clarify which property a deed describes?
It may be admissible when the description partly fits each of two existing properties but fully fits neither. The court must still determine relevance, admissibility and the intended subject on the evidence.
Does this provision allow the parties to rewrite the deed?
No. It permits evidence to apply the document's language to existing facts. Claims for rectification or other substantive remedies raise separate legal questions.
This article explains the general statutory rule and is not a substitute for advice on a particular dispute.