Sections 97 and 98 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Application of Language and Meaning of Illegible Expressions
Sections 97 and 98 formed part of the rules governing documentary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They permitted evidence in specific situations where the language of a document could not be applied with certainty to existing facts or where words, characters or expressions required explanation.
Section 97 - Evidence as to Application of Language to One of Two Sets of Facts
What Section 97 addressed: Section 97 dealt with a document whose language fitted part of one set of existing facts and part of another set, while the complete description fitted neither set correctly. In that situation, evidence could be given to identify which of the two sets of facts the language was intended to describe.
Statutory rule
When the language used applies partly to one set of existing facts and partly to another set of existing facts, but the whole does not correctly apply to either, evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply.
Illustration under Section 97
Meaning: The provision addressed a latent difficulty that appears when apparently meaningful words are compared with real-world facts. The court could receive evidence to determine which factual subject matter the parties intended.
Section 98 - Evidence as to Meaning of Illegible Characters and Special Expressions
What Section 98 addressed: Section 98 permitted explanatory evidence where the language or symbols in a document could not be understood in their ordinary form or ordinary meaning.
Statutory rule
Evidence may be given to show the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible characters, foreign, obsolete, technical, local and provincial expressions, abbreviations, and words used in a peculiar sense.
Illustration under Section 98
Meaning: The section recognised that the intended sense of a written expression may depend on specialist usage, locality, trade, profession, abbreviation, obsolete language or a peculiar meaning used by the parties. Evidence explaining that meaning was therefore admissible within the scope of the provision.
Difference Between Sections 97 and 98
Section 97 concerned uncertainty created by applying the language of a document to two competing sets of existing facts. Section 98 concerned uncertainty in understanding the characters, expressions, abbreviations or peculiar sense of words themselves. Both provisions allowed explanatory evidence, but they addressed different forms of ambiguity.
Legal Context and Practical Effect
Sections 97 and 98 were part of the statutory scheme controlling when evidence could be used to explain documents. They did not create a general power to rewrite a document. Their function was narrower: Section 97 helped identify the intended subject matter where the description partly matched two factual situations, while Section 98 allowed proof of the meaning of language or characters requiring special explanation.
For a fuller understanding of the former statutory scheme, these provisions should be read with the surrounding rules on documentary terms and ambiguity, particularly Section 91, Section 92, Sections 93 and 94, and Sections 95 and 96.
This article explains the statutory provisions for general legal information. Application to a particular document or dispute depends on its facts, the governing law and the relevant judicial decisions.