If the words in a document don't match reality, the document becomes invalid or meaningless.

Courts can look at outside evidence to figure out the real meaning, rather than treating the document as void.

This provision lets courts rewrite or add new terms to a document.

It only allows evidence to clarify what the existing words were actually meant to refer to, not to change the agreement itself.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 98

Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts

When language used in a document is plain in itself, but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense.§

Illustration. A sells to B, by deed, “my house in Kolkata”. A had no house in Kolkata, but it appears that he had a house at Howrah, of which B had been in possession since the execution of the deed. These facts may be proved to show that the deed related to the house at Howrah.§

Why this exists

Documents are meant to reflect real transactions, but people sometimes describe things imprecisely or make honest mistakes about names, places, or descriptions. This provision exists so that a document isn't struck down or left meaningless just because its literal words don't correspond to any actual fact. Instead, courts can use surrounding evidence (like who has possession, or other circumstances) to identify what the parties truly intended, preventing a technical wording error from defeating a genuine transaction.

Common misconceptions

Myth: If the words in a document don't match reality, the document becomes invalid or meaningless.
Fact: Courts can look at outside evidence to figure out the real meaning, rather than treating the document as void.
Myth: This provision lets courts rewrite or add new terms to a document.
Fact: It only allows evidence to clarify what the existing words were actually meant to refer to, not to change the agreement itself.