Sections 95 and 96 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Evidence to Resolve Latent Ambiguity

Sections 95 and 96 formed part of the rules governing the interpretation of documentary language under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They permitted evidence of surrounding facts in two specific situations: where apparently plain language became meaningless when applied to existing facts, and where the language could identify any one, but only one, of several persons or things.

Legal position covered: This article explains the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 position immediately before the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. It is intended for matters in which the former Act remains relevant under the applicable legal and transitional framework.

Meaning of latent ambiguity in documentary evidence

A document may appear clear when read by itself but become uncertain when its words are applied to the actual persons, property or circumstances referred to in it. This is commonly described as a latent ambiguity. Sections 95 and 96 allowed external evidence to identify the intended subject where the statutory conditions were satisfied. They should be read with the neighbouring provisions governing when oral or other evidence may explain the language of a document.

Section 95 - Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts

Rule: Where the language used in a document is plain in itself but becomes meaningless when considered in relation to existing facts, evidence may be given to show that the language was used in a peculiar sense.

Practical meaning: The words are not uncertain on their face. The difficulty appears only after applying them to the real-world facts. Evidence of those facts may then be admitted to explain the special sense in which the words were intended.

Statutory illustration

A sells to B, by deed, "my house in Calcutta." A has no house in Calcutta, but has a house at Howrah, and B has been in possession of that house since execution of the deed. Those facts may be proved to show that the deed related to the house at Howrah.

The illustration shows the essential feature of Section 95: the document looks definite, but the stated description does not fit the existing facts. Evidence is therefore permitted to connect the language with the subject actually intended.

Section 96 - Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons

Rule: Where the facts are such that the language used might have been intended to apply to any one, but could not have been intended to apply to more than one, of several persons or things, evidence may be given of facts showing which person or thing was intended.

Practical meaning: The description is capable of fitting more than one possible subject, although the transaction can concern only one. Evidence of surrounding facts may identify the particular person or thing meant by the document.

Statutory illustrations

White horse: A agrees to sell to B, for Rs. 1,000, "my white horse." A has two white horses. Evidence may be given of facts showing which horse was meant.

Hyderabad: A agrees to accompany B to Hyderabad. Evidence may be given of facts showing which Hyderabad was meant.

Difference between Sections 95 and 96

Point	Section 95	Section 96
Nature of difficulty	Language is plain on its face but becomes meaningless when applied to existing facts.	Language can fit more than one person or thing, but only one could have been intended.
Purpose of evidence	To show the peculiar sense in which the language was used.	To identify which of several possible persons or things was intended.
Typical example	A property description that does not literally match the transferor's existing property.	A description such as "my white horse" where the owner has two white horses.

Key point: Neither provision gave a general licence to rewrite a document by oral evidence. Each operated only where the factual situation created the particular ambiguity described by the section.

Related provisions

For a complete understanding of documentary interpretation under the former Evidence Act, Sections 95 and 96 should be read with Section 91, Section 92, Sections 93 and 94, and Sections 97 and 98.