CHAPTER- VIII
AMBIGUOUS DOCUMENTS
A document is ambiguous when either its language does not show the clear sense of the document or its application to facts create doubts, how far oral evidence can be allowed to clarify the language or to remove the defect? These sections can be placed in two groups depending upon their type of defect shown by the document.
Ambiguities are of two kinds:
1) Patent ambiguity, and
2) Latent ambiguity.
PATENT DEFECTS {S.93-S.94}
Meaning of Patent defects………
Patent ambiguity deals with S.93 & 94. A patent ambiguity means a defect which is apparent on the face of the document. The document is apparently defective. Any person reading the document with ordinary intelligence would at once observe the defect. In such cases the principle is that oral evidence is not allowed to remove the defect. The reason for the rule is that the document being clearly or apparently defective, this fact must be or could have been known to the parties and if they did not care to remove it then it is too late to remove it when a dispute has arisen.
S.93 deals with the Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend ambiguous document and reads as:-
When language used in a document is, on its face, ambiguous of defective, evidence may not be given of facts which would show its meaning or supply its defect.
If the document had mentioned no price at all, oral evidence of the price would have been allowed under S.92 as to a matter of the fact on which the document is silent but not when the document mentions price of ambiguous nature. No extrinsic evidence can be given to remove patent defect.[135] Keshav Lal v Lal Bhai Tea Mills Ltd, AIR 1958 S.C 512 Where a lease deed left blanks at the place where the date of commencement should have been mentioned, but in another part it said that the first installment of rent would be paid on a certain date, the Allahabad High Court held that the date of the payment of the first installment could reasonably be fixed as the date of commencement.[136] U.P. Govt v. Nanhoomal, AIR 1950 All. 420 A contract for the sale of a part of the land of 5 acres, described the part to be sold as “one acre of a front land.” It was held that what constituted the “front land” for this purpose was ascertainable. There was no confusion about the language used and, therefore, S.93 was not attracted.[137] Kandamath Cine EEEnterprises P. Ltd. V. John Philipose, AIR 1990 Ker. 198
S.94 deals with the Exclusion of evidence against application of document of existing facts and reads as -:
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.
This section applies when the execution of the document has been admitted and no vitiating fact has been proved against it. Where the document in question was a record of the proceeding of the Board and contained an admission under signature of the parties, it was held that an admission could be explained by the maker of it and, therefore, oral evidence of explanatory nature was admissible.[138]General Court Enterprises P. Ltd v. John Philipose AIR 1990 ker 198
LATENT DEFECTS {S.95 – S.97}
Meaning of latent defects………
Latent defect means a defect which is not apparent on the face of the record. The document makes a plain reading. There is nothing apparently wrong with its language. But when an attempt is made to apply it to the facts stated in it, it comes out that it does not accurately apply to those facts. Thus the defect is not in language used in the document, but in the application of the language to the facts stated in it, such a hidden defect is known as a latent defect.
S.95 deals with the Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts and reads as-:
When language used in a document is plain in it, but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense.
When the language of a document is plain but in its application to the existing facts it is meaningless, evidence can be given to show how it was intended to apply to those facts. Where for example, a house is agreed to sell by a written deed. The house is described to be located at a particular place or in particular city. It turns out that the seller has no house at that place or in that city, but has a house in a nearby place and that has also been in the occupation of the buyer. Evidence can be given to show that such e house was meant to be sold.
S.96 deals with the Evidence as to application of languages which can apply to one only of several persons and reads as-:
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 of those persons or things it was intended to apply to.
Where a promissory note mentioned a date according to the local calendar and also according to the international calendar, but the two date turned out to be different, it was held that evidence could be offered to show which date was meant.[139]Schuthon Nayar v. Achuthan Nayar, AIR 1941 Mad. 587
S.97 deals with the Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts to neither of which the whole correctly applies and reads as-:
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.
The principle of the section is that where the language of a document applies to one set of facts and partly to another, but does not apply accurately to either, evidence can be given to show to which facts the document was meant to apply.
Difference between Patent Ambiguity and Latent Ambiguity
Patent Ambiguity
Latent Ambiguity
1. Patent ambiguity is there where the language of document is so uncertain and effective thus no meaning can be given to the document.
1. Latent ambiguity is such where the language of documents certain and meaningful but the language of document is not applied to the present circumstances.
2. The patent ambiguity is personal and it is related to the person who executes the document.
2. Latent ambiguity is objective in nature and it is related to subject matter and object of document.
3. No oral evidence is allowed to remove patent ambiguity.
3. Oral evidence is permitted to remove latent ambiguity.
4. Patent ambiguity is based on rule that patent ambiguity makes the document useless.
4. The rule of giving oral evidence in case of latent ambiguity is based on principle that latent ambiguity does not make the document useless.
5. Patent ambiguity is on face of document and is evident from inspection of document itself.
5. Latent ambiguity is not evident from prima facie inspection of document but becomes apparent when the language of document is applied to existing circumstances.
S.98 deals with the Evidence as to meaning of illegible character, etc. and reads as-:
Evidence may be given to show the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible character, of foreign, obsolete, technical, local or provincial expressions, of abbreviations and of words used in a peculiar sense.
This section permits evidence to be given of the meaning of words or marks of illegible character or words which are not commonly of intelligible character, foreign words, obsolete words, technical, local and provincial expressions, abbreviations words used in a peculiar sense. An artist agrees to sell “all his models”. Evidence can be given to show whether he, meant to sell all his models or modeling tools. Oral evidence is admissible for the purpose of explaining artistic words and symbols used in a document.[140]Canadian-General Electric W. v. Fatda Radio Ltd., AIR 1930 P.C. 1
S.99 deals with who may give evidence of agreement varying terms of document and reads as-:
Person who is not parties to document or their representatives in interest may give evidence of any fact tending to show a contemporaneous agreement varying the terms of the document.
The parties to a document or their representative-in-interest cannot give evidence of a contemporary agreement varying the terms of the document. This disability is quite clearly contained in S.92. But this provision is modified by S. 99 in this extent that evidence of such an oral agreement can be given by a third party if he is affected by it.
S.100 deals with saving of provisions of India Succession Act relating to Wills and reads as-:
Nothing in this Chapter contained shall be taken to affect any of the provisions of the Succession Act (X of 1965) as to the construction to Wills.
[81] C.P. Agarwal v. P.O., Labour Court, (1996) 11 S.C.C. 97
[82] State v. K. Narasimhachary. (2005) 8 S.C.C. 364
[83] State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, AIR 2001 S.C. 2532
[84] Carlos v. Maria Palicolade, AIR 2005 NOC 513 (Bom).
[85] Union of India v. Nirmal Singh, AIR 1987 All. 83
[86] Laxmi Raj Sheety v. State of T.N., AIR 1988 S.C. 1274.
[87] Sitaram v. Ram Charan, AIR 1995 MP 134
[88] B.Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India, AIR 2004 S.C. 1923 newspaper reports do not constitute admissible evidence per se, the petition as public interest litigation did not show any element of public interest.
[89] State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 S.C.C. 592.
[90] Laxmi Raj shetty v. State of T.N., AIR 1988 S.C. 1274
[91] Ramswaroop Bagari v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 Raj. 27.
[92] Added by the Information Technology Act, 2000.
[93] City Bank N.A. New Delhi v. J.K.Jute Mills. AIR 1982 Delhi 487
[94] Adhunik Grah Nirman Sahakari samiti Ltd. V. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1989 S.C 867
[95] City Bank N.A. New Delhi v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co., AIR 1982 Delhi 487
[96] Re K.K. ray (P.) Ltd., AIR 1967 Cal 636
[97] Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1976 S.C. 761.
[98] Abdul Jabbar v. A.D.J. Urai, AIR 1980 All. 369
[99] These tree sections have been added by the Information technology act, 2000
[100] Emperor v. Abdul Gani, (1925) 27 Bom. L.R. 1373
[101] Abba Astavas v. Suresh, AIR 1984 N.O.C. 131(Del.)
[102] Added by the Information Technology Act, 2000.
[103] Ibid
[104] Ibid
[105] Surindra Krishna Roy v. Mirza Mohammad Syad Ali, (1935) 63 I.A 85
[106] Ibid
[107] Gangamma v. Shivalingaiah, (2005) 9 S.C.C. 359
[108] Sheo Lal v. Chetram, AIR 1971 S.C. 2342
[109] AIR 1929 P.C 115
[110] AIR 1996 S.C. 1253
[111] The court overruled the old Khetter Chunder Mookerjee v. Khetter Paul, I.L.R.
[112] Kirpal Singh v. Aas kaur, AIR. 1997 P & H 240.
[113] Chandrawati v. Lakhmi Chand, AIR 1988 Delhi 13
[114] Lakshmamma v. Riyaz Khan, AIR 2003 Kant 197
[115] Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani, AIR 2003 S.C 2418
[116] AIR 1967 S.C. 106
[117] Yusuf v. Abdul Sattar, AIR 1938 Mad. 616
[118] Explanation (3) to S. 91.
[119] Javarsetty v. Nongamma, AIR. 1992 Kant. 160.
[120] Vishwa Nathan v. Abdul Wajid, AIR 1986 S.C. 1
[121] Leelamma Ambikakumari v. Narayanan, AIR 1992 Ker 115.
[122] AIR 1955 Bom. 122
[123] AIR 1965 Mad. 147
[124] J. & K. High Court has held that consideration is a condition of validity and not merely a term of the contract so as to attract the bar of section 92, Mustaq Ahmad v. Mohd Shafi, AIR 1983 J.&. K. 44
[125] Illustration (f), S.92
[126] Naraindas v. Papammal, AIR 1967 S.C. 333
[127] Sheo Lal v. Bai Sankali, AIR 1931 Bom. 297.
[128] Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal AIR. 2000 S.C. 426
[129] Roshan Lal v. Munshi Ram, AIR. 1981 Punj. 73.
[130] Bejoy Krishna v. N.B. Sugar Mills Co., AIR 1949 Cal 490.
[131] There are number of Supreme Court decisions on the point.eg-: Chunchun Jha v. Ibadat Ali, AIR 1954 S.C. 354
[132] Baij Nath v. Vally Md., AIR 1925 P.C. 75
[133] AIR 1950 S.C. 21
[134] HAILSHAM edn : Vol. 10 p. 274
[135] Keshav Lal v Lal Bhai Tea Mills Ltd, AIR 1958 S.C 512
[136] U.P. Govt v. Nanhoomal, AIR 1950 All. 420
[137] Kandamath Cine EEEnterprises P. Ltd. V. John Philipose, AIR 1990 Ker. 198
[138] General Court Enterprises P. Ltd v. John Philipose AIR 1990 ker 198
[139] Schuthon Nayar v. Achuthan Nayar, AIR 1941 Mad. 587
[140] Canadian-General Electric W. v. Fatda Radio Ltd., AIR 1930 P.C. 1
Print Page
AMBIGUOUS DOCUMENTS
A document is ambiguous when either its language does not show the clear sense of the document or its application to facts create doubts, how far oral evidence can be allowed to clarify the language or to remove the defect? These sections can be placed in two groups depending upon their type of defect shown by the document.
Ambiguities are of two kinds:
1) Patent ambiguity, and
2) Latent ambiguity.
PATENT DEFECTS {S.93-S.94}
Meaning of Patent defects………
Patent ambiguity deals with S.93 & 94. A patent ambiguity means a defect which is apparent on the face of the document. The document is apparently defective. Any person reading the document with ordinary intelligence would at once observe the defect. In such cases the principle is that oral evidence is not allowed to remove the defect. The reason for the rule is that the document being clearly or apparently defective, this fact must be or could have been known to the parties and if they did not care to remove it then it is too late to remove it when a dispute has arisen.
S.93 deals with the Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend ambiguous document and reads as:-
When language used in a document is, on its face, ambiguous of defective, evidence may not be given of facts which would show its meaning or supply its defect.
If the document had mentioned no price at all, oral evidence of the price would have been allowed under S.92 as to a matter of the fact on which the document is silent but not when the document mentions price of ambiguous nature. No extrinsic evidence can be given to remove patent defect.[135] Keshav Lal v Lal Bhai Tea Mills Ltd, AIR 1958 S.C 512 Where a lease deed left blanks at the place where the date of commencement should have been mentioned, but in another part it said that the first installment of rent would be paid on a certain date, the Allahabad High Court held that the date of the payment of the first installment could reasonably be fixed as the date of commencement.[136] U.P. Govt v. Nanhoomal, AIR 1950 All. 420 A contract for the sale of a part of the land of 5 acres, described the part to be sold as “one acre of a front land.” It was held that what constituted the “front land” for this purpose was ascertainable. There was no confusion about the language used and, therefore, S.93 was not attracted.[137] Kandamath Cine EEEnterprises P. Ltd. V. John Philipose, AIR 1990 Ker. 198
S.94 deals with the Exclusion of evidence against application of document of existing facts and reads as -:
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.
This section applies when the execution of the document has been admitted and no vitiating fact has been proved against it. Where the document in question was a record of the proceeding of the Board and contained an admission under signature of the parties, it was held that an admission could be explained by the maker of it and, therefore, oral evidence of explanatory nature was admissible.[138]General Court Enterprises P. Ltd v. John Philipose AIR 1990 ker 198
LATENT DEFECTS {S.95 – S.97}
Meaning of latent defects………
Latent defect means a defect which is not apparent on the face of the record. The document makes a plain reading. There is nothing apparently wrong with its language. But when an attempt is made to apply it to the facts stated in it, it comes out that it does not accurately apply to those facts. Thus the defect is not in language used in the document, but in the application of the language to the facts stated in it, such a hidden defect is known as a latent defect.
S.95 deals with the Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts and reads as-:
When language used in a document is plain in it, but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense.
When the language of a document is plain but in its application to the existing facts it is meaningless, evidence can be given to show how it was intended to apply to those facts. Where for example, a house is agreed to sell by a written deed. The house is described to be located at a particular place or in particular city. It turns out that the seller has no house at that place or in that city, but has a house in a nearby place and that has also been in the occupation of the buyer. Evidence can be given to show that such e house was meant to be sold.
S.96 deals with the Evidence as to application of languages which can apply to one only of several persons and reads as-:
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 of those persons or things it was intended to apply to.
Where a promissory note mentioned a date according to the local calendar and also according to the international calendar, but the two date turned out to be different, it was held that evidence could be offered to show which date was meant.[139]Schuthon Nayar v. Achuthan Nayar, AIR 1941 Mad. 587
S.97 deals with the Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts to neither of which the whole correctly applies and reads as-:
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.
The principle of the section is that where the language of a document applies to one set of facts and partly to another, but does not apply accurately to either, evidence can be given to show to which facts the document was meant to apply.
Difference between Patent Ambiguity and Latent Ambiguity
Patent Ambiguity
Latent Ambiguity
1. Patent ambiguity is there where the language of document is so uncertain and effective thus no meaning can be given to the document.
1. Latent ambiguity is such where the language of documents certain and meaningful but the language of document is not applied to the present circumstances.
2. The patent ambiguity is personal and it is related to the person who executes the document.
2. Latent ambiguity is objective in nature and it is related to subject matter and object of document.
3. No oral evidence is allowed to remove patent ambiguity.
3. Oral evidence is permitted to remove latent ambiguity.
4. Patent ambiguity is based on rule that patent ambiguity makes the document useless.
4. The rule of giving oral evidence in case of latent ambiguity is based on principle that latent ambiguity does not make the document useless.
5. Patent ambiguity is on face of document and is evident from inspection of document itself.
5. Latent ambiguity is not evident from prima facie inspection of document but becomes apparent when the language of document is applied to existing circumstances.
S.98 deals with the Evidence as to meaning of illegible character, etc. and reads as-:
Evidence may be given to show the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible character, of foreign, obsolete, technical, local or provincial expressions, of abbreviations and of words used in a peculiar sense.
This section permits evidence to be given of the meaning of words or marks of illegible character or words which are not commonly of intelligible character, foreign words, obsolete words, technical, local and provincial expressions, abbreviations words used in a peculiar sense. An artist agrees to sell “all his models”. Evidence can be given to show whether he, meant to sell all his models or modeling tools. Oral evidence is admissible for the purpose of explaining artistic words and symbols used in a document.[140]Canadian-General Electric W. v. Fatda Radio Ltd., AIR 1930 P.C. 1
S.99 deals with who may give evidence of agreement varying terms of document and reads as-:
Person who is not parties to document or their representatives in interest may give evidence of any fact tending to show a contemporaneous agreement varying the terms of the document.
The parties to a document or their representative-in-interest cannot give evidence of a contemporary agreement varying the terms of the document. This disability is quite clearly contained in S.92. But this provision is modified by S. 99 in this extent that evidence of such an oral agreement can be given by a third party if he is affected by it.
S.100 deals with saving of provisions of India Succession Act relating to Wills and reads as-:
Nothing in this Chapter contained shall be taken to affect any of the provisions of the Succession Act (X of 1965) as to the construction to Wills.
[81] C.P. Agarwal v. P.O., Labour Court, (1996) 11 S.C.C. 97
[82] State v. K. Narasimhachary. (2005) 8 S.C.C. 364
[83] State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, AIR 2001 S.C. 2532
[84] Carlos v. Maria Palicolade, AIR 2005 NOC 513 (Bom).
[85] Union of India v. Nirmal Singh, AIR 1987 All. 83
[86] Laxmi Raj Sheety v. State of T.N., AIR 1988 S.C. 1274.
[87] Sitaram v. Ram Charan, AIR 1995 MP 134
[88] B.Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India, AIR 2004 S.C. 1923 newspaper reports do not constitute admissible evidence per se, the petition as public interest litigation did not show any element of public interest.
[89] State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 S.C.C. 592.
[90] Laxmi Raj shetty v. State of T.N., AIR 1988 S.C. 1274
[91] Ramswaroop Bagari v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 Raj. 27.
[92] Added by the Information Technology Act, 2000.
[93] City Bank N.A. New Delhi v. J.K.Jute Mills. AIR 1982 Delhi 487
[94] Adhunik Grah Nirman Sahakari samiti Ltd. V. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1989 S.C 867
[95] City Bank N.A. New Delhi v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co., AIR 1982 Delhi 487
[96] Re K.K. ray (P.) Ltd., AIR 1967 Cal 636
[97] Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1976 S.C. 761.
[98] Abdul Jabbar v. A.D.J. Urai, AIR 1980 All. 369
[99] These tree sections have been added by the Information technology act, 2000
[100] Emperor v. Abdul Gani, (1925) 27 Bom. L.R. 1373
[101] Abba Astavas v. Suresh, AIR 1984 N.O.C. 131(Del.)
[102] Added by the Information Technology Act, 2000.
[103] Ibid
[104] Ibid
[105] Surindra Krishna Roy v. Mirza Mohammad Syad Ali, (1935) 63 I.A 85
[106] Ibid
[107] Gangamma v. Shivalingaiah, (2005) 9 S.C.C. 359
[108] Sheo Lal v. Chetram, AIR 1971 S.C. 2342
[109] AIR 1929 P.C 115
[110] AIR 1996 S.C. 1253
[111] The court overruled the old Khetter Chunder Mookerjee v. Khetter Paul, I.L.R.
[112] Kirpal Singh v. Aas kaur, AIR. 1997 P & H 240.
[113] Chandrawati v. Lakhmi Chand, AIR 1988 Delhi 13
[114] Lakshmamma v. Riyaz Khan, AIR 2003 Kant 197
[115] Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani, AIR 2003 S.C 2418
[116] AIR 1967 S.C. 106
[117] Yusuf v. Abdul Sattar, AIR 1938 Mad. 616
[118] Explanation (3) to S. 91.
[119] Javarsetty v. Nongamma, AIR. 1992 Kant. 160.
[120] Vishwa Nathan v. Abdul Wajid, AIR 1986 S.C. 1
[121] Leelamma Ambikakumari v. Narayanan, AIR 1992 Ker 115.
[122] AIR 1955 Bom. 122
[123] AIR 1965 Mad. 147
[124] J. & K. High Court has held that consideration is a condition of validity and not merely a term of the contract so as to attract the bar of section 92, Mustaq Ahmad v. Mohd Shafi, AIR 1983 J.&. K. 44
[125] Illustration (f), S.92
[126] Naraindas v. Papammal, AIR 1967 S.C. 333
[127] Sheo Lal v. Bai Sankali, AIR 1931 Bom. 297.
[128] Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal AIR. 2000 S.C. 426
[129] Roshan Lal v. Munshi Ram, AIR. 1981 Punj. 73.
[130] Bejoy Krishna v. N.B. Sugar Mills Co., AIR 1949 Cal 490.
[131] There are number of Supreme Court decisions on the point.eg-: Chunchun Jha v. Ibadat Ali, AIR 1954 S.C. 354
[132] Baij Nath v. Vally Md., AIR 1925 P.C. 75
[133] AIR 1950 S.C. 21
[134] HAILSHAM edn : Vol. 10 p. 274
[135] Keshav Lal v Lal Bhai Tea Mills Ltd, AIR 1958 S.C 512
[136] U.P. Govt v. Nanhoomal, AIR 1950 All. 420
[137] Kandamath Cine EEEnterprises P. Ltd. V. John Philipose, AIR 1990 Ker. 198
[138] General Court Enterprises P. Ltd v. John Philipose AIR 1990 ker 198
[139] Schuthon Nayar v. Achuthan Nayar, AIR 1941 Mad. 587
[140] Canadian-General Electric W. v. Fatda Radio Ltd., AIR 1930 P.C. 1
No comments:
Post a Comment