Section 95: Explanation of Documents When Language is Ambiguous or Defective

Overview

Section 95 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, deals with situations where the wording of a document is unclear or has flaws. It allows a court to consider other evidence – primarily oral testimony – to understand what the document *actually* means. Essentially, if a written agreement is confusing, the court can hear explanations to clarify it.

Key Principles / Ingredients

• Type of Evidence: This section primarily concerns documentary evidence (written agreements, letters, etc.) and allows for the introduction of oral evidence. It doesn’t deal with electronic records directly, but the principle applies equally.
• Conditions for Admissibility/Relevancy: The document itself must be ambiguous or defective *on its face*. This means the confusion is apparent just by reading the document, not because someone is misinterpreting it. The oral evidence must be aimed at explaining the meaning, not contradicting the document.
• Burden of Proof: The party seeking to introduce oral evidence to explain the document bears the responsibility of showing the ambiguity or defect. They don’t need to prove their interpretation is correct initially, just that a reasonable person could find the document unclear. The burden of proving the facts asserted in the oral evidence remains with that party.

How Courts Use this Provision

Judges use Section 95 when a document’s language is open to multiple interpretations. They allow witnesses – often the parties to the document or those involved in its creation – to testify about the context, negotiations, or common understanding surrounding the document. This helps the court determine the true intention of the parties. The court will carefully consider if the oral evidence is genuinely explaining the ambiguity or attempting to alter the document’s terms.

Illustrations and Examples

• Example 1: A lease agreement states rent is payable “monthly.” The tenant argues “monthly” means at the end of each month, while the landlord claims it means at the beginning. The court can hear testimony from both parties about their understanding during the lease negotiation to clarify the intended payment schedule.
• Example 2: A contract for the sale of “goods” doesn’t define what “goods” means. The seller claims it refers to specific machinery, while the buyer believes it includes spare parts. The court can admit evidence about industry practice and prior dealings between the parties to determine the scope of “goods” in this contract.

Important Provisos / Explanations

Section 95 doesn’t have specific provisos or explanations attached. However, it’s crucial to remember that the oral evidence *cannot* be used to contradict the written terms of the document. It can only explain them. The document remains the primary source of truth; oral evidence is supplementary.

Difference from Old Evidence Act (if applicable)

The Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, largely retains the principles of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which dealt with the same issue. There are no significant shifts in the core concept of allowing oral evidence to explain ambiguous documents. The new Bill aims for clearer language and structure but doesn’t fundamentally alter this rule.

Key Takeaways

• Section 95 allows oral evidence to clarify ambiguous documents.
• The ambiguity must be apparent on the face of the document.
• Oral evidence cannot contradict the document’s terms, only explain them.
• The party offering the explanation bears the initial burden of showing ambiguity.