BSA Section 100 — Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies

Summary

When language in a document or statement fits partly with one set of facts and partly with another set of facts, but does not fit completely with either set, evidence can be given to show which set of facts the language was actually meant to apply to.

For example, if a person agrees to sell "my land at X in the occupation of Y," and that person owns land at X that is not occupied by Y, and also owns land occupied by Y that is not at X, evidence may be given about the facts to show which piece of land was meant to be sold.

Official Text

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.

Related Judgments

• SURENDRA NATH KHOSLA vs DALIP SINGH — Supreme Court of India (1956)
• HARI SINGH vs KANHAIYA LAL — Supreme Court of India (1999)
• SMT PRATIMA ANAND vs URMILA GANGWAL & ORS — Delhi High Court (2023)
• GURDEV KAUR AND ORS. vs KAKI AND ORS — Supreme Court of India (2006)

Old <-> New Code Mapping

• IEA §97 — Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies