Section 99 BSA: Evidence as to Application of Language to One of Several Persons

Section 99 BSA permits evidence to identify the intended person or thing when a document’s description fits multiple possible candidates.

Introduction

Section 99 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) addresses a situation in which the words used in a document could refer to any one of several persons or things, but the parties intended to refer to only one. In such cases, evidence of relevant facts may be admitted to establish which person or thing the document was intended to identify.

For example, if A agrees to sell B “my white horse” but owns two white horses, evidence may be introduced to establish which horse was intended to be sold.

This rule helps courts resolve uncertainty in documentary descriptions without permitting parties to rewrite the underlying agreement. Section 99 substantially corresponds to Section 96 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and deals with a form of latent ambiguity sometimes described as equivocation.

Bare Act: Section 99 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

99. Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons.— 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 which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to.

Illustrations

(a) A agrees to sell to B, for one thousand rupees, “my white horse”. A has two white horses. Evidence may be given of facts which show which of them was meant.

(b) A agrees to accompany B to Ramgarh. Evidence may be given of facts showing whether Ramgarh in Rajasthan or Ramgarh in Uttarakhand was meant.

Explanation of Section 99 BSA

1. Meaning of Section 99 BSA

Section 99 applies when a document uses a description that could reasonably identify more than one person or thing, although the transaction was intended to concern only one.

The words may be clear in themselves, but they do not distinguish between the available candidates. The court may therefore consider relevant evidence to determine the intended reference.

For instance, if a seller owns two white horses and agrees to sell “my white horse”, the description alone does not identify the particular animal. Evidence about the negotiations, the animal shown to the buyer or other relevant circumstances may establish which horse was intended.

The purpose is to identify the subject matter of the existing agreement, not to introduce a different bargain.

2. Essential conditions for applying Section 99

Three conditions are central to the provision.

First, the language must be capable of applying to several persons or things.

The description must reasonably fit more than one candidate. Examples include two animals of the same colour, two properties with similar descriptions or two places bearing the same name.

Second, the language must have been intended to apply to only one candidate.

Section 99 concerns a transaction whose subject matter is one particular person or thing, even though the wording could fit several possibilities.

Also Read: Section 98 BSA: Evidence as to Document Unmeaning in Reference to Existing Facts

Third, evidence must help identify the intended candidate.

The evidence must be relevant to deciding which of the possible persons or things the document refers to. It cannot be used merely to replace the agreed subject matter with a different one.

3. Illustration (a): Sale of a white horse

A agrees to sell B a white horse for ₹1,000. A owns two white horses.

The words “my white horse” could refer to either animal. However, the agreement concerns only one horse. Section 99 permits evidence of facts that establish which horse the parties intended.

Relevant evidence might include:

• The particular horse shown to B before the agreement.
• Communications identifying the animal.
• The circumstances surrounding the agreement.
• Other reliable facts connecting the transaction with one specific horse.

The evidence clarifies the identity of the subject matter without changing the agreed price or other contractual terms.

4. Illustration (b): Two places named Ramgarh

A agrees to accompany B to Ramgarh. The name could refer to Ramgarh in Rajasthan or Ramgarh in Uttarakhand.

Evidence may be given to establish which destination the parties intended. Relevant circumstances could include their travel arrangements, previous communications or the context in which the destination was discussed.

This illustration demonstrates that Section 99 is not limited to property transactions. It can also apply to agreements involving places or other identifiable subjects.

5. What evidence may be admitted under Section 99?

The provision permits evidence of facts that help identify the intended person or thing. Depending on the dispute, this may include:

• Communications exchanged during negotiations.
• The circumstances in which the document was executed.
• Identifying characteristics of the person, property or object.
• Relevant conduct of the parties.
• Other facts connecting the description with a particular candidate.

The court must determine whether the evidence genuinely resolves the uncertainty. Section 99 does not permit unlimited reliance on alleged intentions or create a general right to vary written terms.

Section 98 vs Section 99 BSA

Sections 98 and 99 both address difficulties in applying documentary language to existing facts, but they concern different situations.

Basis	Section 98 BSA	Section 99 BSA
Subject	Evidence concerning language that is unmeaning in reference to existing facts	Evidence identifying one intended person or thing among several candidates
Nature of problem	The description does not meaningfully fit the existing facts	The description fits several possible candidates
Evidentiary rule	Evidence may show that the words were used in a peculiar sense	Evidence may establish which candidate was intended
Example	A deed refers to a house in Kolkata, but the relevant facts point to a house in Howrah	An agreement refers to “my white horse”, but the seller owns two white horses

The key distinction is that Section 98 deals with language that does not meaningfully fit the facts, whereas Section 99 deals with language that fits several possible candidates.

Section 99 vs Section 100 BSA

Section 100 addresses another type of uncertainty in applying documentary language to existing facts.

Basis	Section 99 BSA	Section 100 BSA
Nature of uncertainty	Several candidates fit the description	Different parts of the description fit different sets of facts
Main rule	Evidence may identify which candidate was intended	Evidence may establish which set of facts the description was intended to refer to
Example	A owns two white horses and agrees to sell “my white horse”	A has land at X that is not occupied by Y and separate land occupied by Y that is not at X; the agreement refers to “my land at X in the occupation of Y”

Section 99 resolves uncertainty between several possible persons or things. Section 100 deals with a description in which different elements correspond to different sets of existing facts, but the entire description does not correctly fit either set.

Important Case Law on Section 99 BSA

The following judgment interprets the predecessor provision, Section 96 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It remains relevant to understanding the corresponding rule under Section 99 BSA.

Pradeep Kumar v. Mahaveer Pershad and Others

Citation: AIR 2003 AP 107; 2002 (6) ALT 360

Also Read: Section 97 BSA: Application of Document to Existing Facts

Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Decision date: 26 August 2002

Legal principle: The dispute concerned competing claims to property and the interpretation of a registered trust deed. The High Court examined Sections 93–98 of the former Indian Evidence Act, which governed the use of external evidence in interpreting documents.

The Court explained that where the language of a document is plain and intelligible but applies equally to two or more persons or things, evidence may be admitted to establish which person or thing the parties intended. It classified this situation as one involving latent ambiguity.

The judgment also distinguished this situation from patent ambiguity, where the wording is ambiguous or defective on the face of the document.

Relevance to Section 99 BSA: The decision explains why external evidence may be admissible when a description fits multiple candidates and the court needs to determine which one was intended. The evidence assists in identifying the subject matter rather than automatically permitting a change to the document’s terms.

Important qualification: This is a judgment under the former Indian Evidence Act, 1872, not a decision originally delivered under Section 99 BSA. It is an Andhra Pradesh High Court decision, not a Supreme Court ruling.

Practical Examples of Section 99 BSA

Situation	Application
A agrees to sell “my white horse” but owns two white horses	Evidence may identify which horse was intended
A agrees to accompany B to Ramgarh, but two possible destinations bear that name	Evidence may establish the intended destination
An agreement refers to a shop at an address where two shops could fit the description	Relevant evidence may identify the intended shop
A document describes a property that does not meaningfully correspond with the existing facts	Section 98 may be relevant instead
A document clearly identifies property and accurately matches the existing facts	Section 97 may be relevant
One part of a property description fits one property and another part fits a different property	Section 100 may be relevant

These examples are illustrative. The court must examine the wording, the existing facts and the purpose for which the evidence is offered.

Importance of Section 99 BSA

Section 99 is useful because documentary descriptions do not always uniquely identify the intended subject matter.

1. Identifies the subject matter: It helps courts determine which person, property, animal or place a document concerns.
2. Resolves uncertainty: It addresses situations where the same description fits multiple candidates.
3. Supports accurate interpretation: It allows relevant circumstances to clarify a reference that cannot be resolved from the words alone.
4. Prevents arbitrary substitution: It permits identification of the intended subject without creating a general right to rewrite the transaction.
5. Assists in property disputes: It can apply where agreements refer to shops, land, houses or other properties with insufficiently distinctive descriptions.

Key Points for Law Students and Judiciary Exams

• Section 99 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 concerns the application of language that could refer to one of several persons or things.
• It substantially corresponds to Section 96 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Evidence may be given to establish which person or thing the language was intended to identify.
• The statutory illustrations concern the sale of one of two white horses and the choice between two places named Ramgarh.
• The provision addresses a form of latent ambiguity, sometimes described as equivocation.
• Section 98 concerns language that is unmeaning when applied to existing facts.
• Section 99 concerns language that fits several possible candidates, although only one was intended.
• Section 100 concerns language whose different parts correspond to different sets of existing facts.
• Pradeep Kumar v. Mahaveer Pershad, AIR 2003 AP 107, explains the distinction between patent and latent ambiguity and discusses the corresponding provisions of the former Act.
• Section 99 permits identification of the intended subject; it does not create a general right to change the terms of a document.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is Section 99 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

Section 99 permits evidence of facts showing which person or thing a document was intended to refer to when the language could apply to any one of several candidates but could not have been intended to apply to more than one.

Which section of the Indian Evidence Act corresponds to Section 99 BSA?

Section 99 BSA substantially corresponds to Section 96 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Can evidence be given to identify property under Section 99 BSA?

Yes. Where a document’s description could apply to more than one property but was intended to identify only one, relevant evidence may be admitted to establish which property was intended.

What is the white horse illustration under Section 99 BSA?

A agrees to sell B “my white horse” for ₹1,000. A owns two white horses. Evidence may be given to establish which horse the agreement concerns.

What is the difference between Sections 98 and 99 BSA?

Section 98 applies where clear language does not meaningfully fit the existing facts. Section 99 applies where the description fits several possible persons or things, although only one was intended.

Which case law is relevant to Section 99 BSA?

Pradeep Kumar v. Mahaveer Pershad and Others, AIR 2003 AP 107, is relevant because the Andhra Pradesh High Court discussed Section 96 of the former Indian Evidence Act and explained the admissibility of evidence to identify which of several possible subjects a document was intended to cover.

Conclusion

Section 99 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 permits evidence to identify the intended person or thing when a document’s language could refer to several candidates but was meant to refer to only one.

The provision is particularly relevant to disputes involving property descriptions, agreements and other documents where the subject matter is not uniquely identified by the wording alone. It should be distinguished from Sections 98 and 100, which address different forms of uncertainty in applying documentary language to existing facts.