If a description doesn't match anything exactly, the agreement or document becomes automatically invalid.

Courts don't automatically void the document. Under this provision, evidence can be used to clarify intent when the description partially fits two things, so the transaction can still be given effect once true intent is established.

This provision lets courts guess or assume what a party 'probably' meant.

It doesn't permit guesswork; it specifically allows admission of extrinsic evidence (facts, conduct, communications) to determine actual intent, not speculation.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 100

Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the

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.§

Why this exists

This provision addresses a specific type of ambiguity in documents—where a description is a partial, split match to two real things rather than a clean match to one. Unlike a description that fits one thing perfectly, or one that fits nothing at all, a 'partial fit to two things' creates genuine uncertainty about intent. The rule reflects a long-standing evidentiary principle (carried over from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) that when written words are ambiguous in this particular way, the court should not simply guess or void the transaction—it should look at surrounding facts and circumstances to discover what the parties actually intended.

Common misconceptions

Myth: If a description doesn't match anything exactly, the agreement or document becomes automatically invalid.
Fact: Courts don't automatically void the document. Under this provision, evidence can be used to clarify intent when the description partially fits two things, so the transaction can still be given effect once true intent is established.
Myth: This provision lets courts guess or assume what a party 'probably' meant.
Fact: It doesn't permit guesswork; it specifically allows admission of extrinsic evidence (facts, conduct, communications) to determine actual intent, not speculation.