Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies.

What this section does

When the language of a document applies partly to one set of existing facts and partly to another, but does not apply wholly and correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which set of facts it was meant to apply. This resolves latent ambiguity where the description partially fits two different subjects.

AI-generated plain-language summary. For the binding statutory text, see India Code (official).

The rule in one line

Where documentary language partially fits two different sets of facts but fits neither completely, extrinsic evidence is admissible to identify the intended subject.

When it applies

• A agrees to sell 'my land at X in the occupation of Y' — A has land at X (not occupied by Y) and land occupied by Y (not at X) — evidence may be given to show which was meant.
• A deed describes property by two characteristics, each of which matches a different parcel — evidence of surrounding circumstances is admissible to identify the intended parcel.

Derived from IEA s.97.