The rule about admission or exclusion of extrinsic evidence has been laid down under section 93 to 98 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such exclusion or admission of extrinsic evidence is in connection with the ambiguity of documents i.e. the facts contained in a document which either a contract or not.
Ambiguity in Documents and its Kinds:
Where any word, expression, sentence or statement is capable of giving more than one meaning, such word, expression etc. is called ambiguous. Ambiguity may be patent ambiguity or latent ambiguity. Where the ambiguity is apparent on the face of the document, it is called patent ambiguity. It is apparent from the reading itself. Latent ambiguity is that which seems certain and without ambiguity for anything that appears on the deed but there is some collateral matters out of the deed that breaths the ambiguity. Oral evidence is admissible to remove latent ambiguity.
The test to find the difference that whether the ambiguity is a patent ambiguity or a latent ambiguity is to put the document in the hands of an ordinary intelligent educated person. If on reading the document the ambiguity can be detected and no definite meaning can be understood then such ambiguity is patent ambiguity. If on perusal of document no ambiguity can be found by him and the meaning is definite but that document is applied with the instrument of facts, the ambiguity arises and its meaning becomes indefinite, then the ambiguity is the latent ambiguity.
Distinguish between Patent Ambiguity and Latent Ambiguity:
| Patent Ambiguity | Latent Ambiguity |
| When the language of the document is so uncertain and effective that no meaning can be granted to the document then it is called as Patent Ambiguity. | When the language of a document is certain and meaningful but the document makes no relevance in the present circumstance then it is latent ambiguity. |
| The patent ambiguity is personal in nature and it is related to the person executing the document. | The latent ambiguity is of objective nature and it is related to the subject matter and object of the document. |
| Oral evidence is not allowed for the removal of patent ambiguity. | To remove latent ambiguity, oral evidence is allowed. |
| The rule on which the patent ambiguity is based is that the patent ambiguity makes the document useless. | Giving oral evidence in case of latent ambiguity is based on the principle the latent ambiguity does not make a document useless. |
| A patent ambiguity is on the face of the document and is evident from inspection of the document itself. | Latent ambiguity is not evident from prima facie inspection of the document but it becomes apparent when the language of a document is applied to existing circumstances |
| Section 93 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with patent ambiguity. | Sections 95 to 97 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with latent ambiguity. |
Section 93 IEA:
Exclusion of Evidence to Explain or Amend Ambiguous Document:
When the language used in a document is, on its face, ambiguous or defective, evidence may not be given of facts which would show its meaning or supply its defects.
Illustrations:
(a) A agrees, in writing, to sell a horse to B for Rs. 1,000 or Rs. 1,500. Evidence cannot be given to show which price was to be given.
(b) A deed contains blanks. Evidence cannot be given of facts which would show how they were meant to be filled.
Thus, according to Section 93 of the Act, when a document is ambiguous on its face, no extrinsic evidence is allowed to explain or amend the instrument.
In Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh, AIR 1928 Lah 609 (FB) case, the Court held that where the document is plain and unambiguous, one has to read the words in their ordinary and grammatical meaning unless, it leads to absurdity and is repugnant to the intention of the parties as can be gathered from the other parts of the document.
In the case of Keshav Lal v. Lal Bhai T. Mills Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 512 case, the Supreme Court held that it would not be open for the parties or the court to remove the ambiguity or vagueness by relying upon the extrinsic evidence.
In Food Corporation of India v. Birendra Nath Dhar, AIR 1989 NOC Cal case, where there was a document of contract for transportation of foodgrains for two years. But the place where the amount for transportation was to be mentioned was left blank. The minimum wage to be paid was left blank. Contractor was giving different amounts. The Court held that under Section 93 of the Evidence Ac, no oral evidence can be allowed to fill up the blanks of the document.
Section 94 IEA:
Exclusion of Evidence Against Application of Document to Existing Facts:
When language used in a document is plain in itself, and when it applies accurately to existing facts, evidence may not be given to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts.
Illustration:
A, sells to B, by deed, “my estate at Rampur containing 100 bighas”. A has an estate at Rampur containing 100 bighas. Evidence may not be given of the fact that the estate meant to be sold was one situated at a different place and of a different size.
Section 94 puts stress on accurate application to existing facts when the language used in the document is plain and unambiguous. Court will not admit any evidence to contrary. Thus, this section comes into play when the language of the document is considered by the court with reference to any factual situation.
In General Court Marshal v. Col. Anil Tej Singh Dhaliwal, AIR 1998 SC 983 case the Supreme Court held that section 94 applies only when the execution of the document is admitted before the court and there are no vitiating circumstances against it.
Section 95 IEA:
Evidence as to Document Unmeaning in Reference to Existing Facts:
When language used in a document is plain in itself, but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense.
Illustration:
A, sells to B, by deed, “my house in Calcutta”. A had no house in Calcutta, but it appears that he had a house at Howrah, of which B had been in possession since the execution of the deed. These facts may be proved to show that the deed related to the house at Howrah.
In Pandit Chunchun Jha v. Sheikh Ebadat Ali AIR 1954 SC 345 case, the Supreme Court Observed: “where a document has to be construed the intention must be gathered, in the first place, from the document itself. If the words are express and clear., effect must be given to them and any extraneous enquiry into what was thought or intended is ruled out. the real question in such a case is not what the parties intended or meant but what is the legal effect of the words which they used. If, however, there is ambiguity in the language employed, then it is permissible to look to the surrounding circumstances to determine what was intended”.
In Basavapunna Reddy v. Krishnayya, AIR 1066 AP 260 case, the Court held that where the document correctly identifies the property which is to be sold but in the annexed schedule wrongly mentions the house or survey number or its neighbours, oral evidence can be adduced to correct the mistake.
Section 96 IEA:
Evidence as to Application of Language which Can Apply to One Only of Several Persons:
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 Rs. 1,000, “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 Haidarabad. Evidence may be given of facts showing whether Haidarabad in the Dekkhan or Haiderabad in Sind was meant.
Section 97 IEA:
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.
Illustration:
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.
In Banaphal Singh v. Noor Mohammad, AIR 1935 All 662 case, the Court held that where the document of sale mentions the boundaries which indicate that whole plot is sold but another part of it shows the survey number which indicates that only part of the plot was the subject matter of the of sale, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show whether the whole or only the part of the plot is intended to be sold.
Section 98 IEA:
Evidence as to Meaning of Illegible Characters, etc.:
Evidence may be given to show the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible characters, of foreign, obsolete, technical, local and provincial expressions, of abbreviations and of words used in a peculiar sense.
Illustration:
A, sculptor, agrees to sell to B, “all my mods”. A has both models and modelling tools. Evidence may be given to show which he meant to sell.
The Section enables the party to give evidence to explain the special meaning of the use of words and not a normal use. Expert advice under Section 45 of the Act can be obtained.
In RHLR Bahadur Estates v. Hern Chandra, AIR 1949 PC 179 case, the Court held that a judge shall not attempt to translate, however qualified to translate, as he is not witness and also the parties cannot test his translation.
Section 99 IEA:
Who May Give Evidence of Agreement Varying Terms of Document:
Persons who are not parties to a document, or their representatives in interest, may give evidence of any facts tending to show a contemporaneous agreement varying the terms of the document. Illustration A and B make a contract in writing that B shall sell A certain cotton, to be paid for on delivery. At the same time they make an oral agreement that three months credit shall be given to A. This could not be shown as between A and B, but it might be shown by C, if it affected his interests.
Section 92 forbids the admission of evidence of an oral agreement for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, the terms of written document as between the parties to such document or their representatives in interest. This principle of Section 92 does not apply to third person under Section 99.
In the case of Bai Hira Devi v. Official Assignee of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 448 case section 92 deals only with the matter related to contracts, grants and other depositions of the property but section 99 deals with all types of documents, whether it is a contract or not. Section 99 speaks only about varying the terms of a document.
Section 100 IEA:
Saving of Provisions of Indian Succession Act Relating to Wills:
Nothing in this Chapter contained shall be taken to affect any of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1865 1 (10 of 1865) as to the construction of wills
Now this Section refers to the Indian succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925)