Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 96
Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend ambiguous document
When the language used in a document is, on its face, ambiguous or defective, evidence may not be given of facts which would show its meaning or supply its defects. Illustrations.
(a) A agrees, in writing, to sell a horse to B for “one lakh rupees or one lakh fifty thousand rupees”. Evidence cannot be given to show which price was to be given.
(b) A deed contains blanks. Evidence cannot be given of facts which would show how they were meant to be filled.
Why this exists
This rule comes from the older English common-law idea of 'patent ambiguity' — where a document's confusion is obvious just from reading it, as opposed to 'latent ambiguity,' which only becomes visible when the document is applied to real facts. The law wants people to write documents clearly and does not want courts to effectively rewrite a badly drafted document using guesswork, witness memory, or convenient outside stories. It appeared in the original Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (as Section 93) and has been carried forward largely unchanged into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Courts can always call witnesses to explain what a confusing contract really meant.
Fact: Only when the ambiguity is 'latent' (hidden until applied to facts) can outside evidence help. If the ambiguity is obvious just from reading the document ('patent'), no such evidence is allowed. - Myth: Leaving blanks in a legal document is fine as long as everyone remembers what was meant.
Fact: The law does not allow evidence to fill in blanks left in a document; unclear or incomplete terms generally remain unenforceable as written.