Section 97: Evidence as to Application of Language to One of Two Sets of Facts

Overview

Section 97 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, addresses situations where a document’s wording could relate to two different sets of events. It allows evidence to be presented to clarify which set of facts the document was actually intended to describe. Essentially, it helps resolve ambiguity in written records.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: This section primarily deals with documentary evidence (written contracts, letters, notes, etc.) but allows for the introduction of oral evidence to explain the document’s meaning.
• Conditions for Admissibility/Relevancy: Evidence is admissible if it can shed light on the intended meaning of the language used in the document, specifically when that language is capable of applying to more than one set of facts. The evidence must directly relate to clarifying which facts were in the author’s mind.
• Burden of Proof Implications: The party relying on the document to prove a particular fact bears the initial burden of showing the document’s relevance. If the opposing party raises a legitimate ambiguity – that the document could refer to another set of facts – the burden shifts to the party relying on the document to demonstrate which set of facts was intended. This isn’t a full shift of the overall case burden, but a burden regarding the interpretation of this specific piece of evidence.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges use Section 97 when a document’s language is unclear and could support different interpretations. They allow parties to present evidence – often testimony from the document’s author or those involved – to explain the context and intended meaning. The court then weighs this evidence to determine which interpretation is more likely correct. The goal is to ascertain the true facts the document was meant to record.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1: A contract states, “The goods shall be delivered to the buyer.” There are two buyers, Mr. Sharma and Ms. Verma. Oral evidence is allowed to show whether the contract was intended to deliver the goods to Mr. Sharma or Ms. Verma.
• Example 2: A will leaves a sum of money to “my nephew.” The testator (person making the will) had two nephews – one biological and one through marriage. Evidence can be presented (like letters or statements made before the will was written) to determine which nephew the testator intended to benefit. This is more complex because it involves interpreting intent based on surrounding circumstances.

Important Provisos / Explanations

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, doesn’t include specific provisos or explanations attached to Section 97. The section operates on the general principles of evidence admissibility and relevance. However, the court will always consider the overall context of the document and the surrounding circumstances when applying this section.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

Section 97 largely mirrors the provision in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There are no significant shifts in the core principle. The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, aims for clarity and simplification, but this section remains substantially the same in its application.

Key Takeaways

• Section 97 resolves ambiguity in documentary evidence.
• Oral evidence is admissible to clarify the intended meaning.
• The party relying on the document bears the burden of proving its intended application.
• Context and surrounding circumstances are crucial for interpretation.