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

Section 98 BSA allows evidence to explain clear document language that does not fit the existing facts.

Introduction

Section 98 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with situations in which the language of a document is clear in itself but does not make sense when applied to the actual circumstances. In such cases, evidence may be introduced to show that the words were used in a particular or unusual sense.

This provision addresses a form of latent ambiguity. Unlike an ambiguity apparent on the face of a document, latent ambiguity emerges when the document’s wording is compared with the existing facts.

For example, if a deed refers to a person’s house in Kolkata, but that person owns no house there and owns a house in Howrah that the buyer has occupied since the deed was executed, evidence may be admitted to establish that the deed was intended to refer to the house in Howrah.

Section 98 substantially corresponds to Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It forms part of the rules governing documentary interpretation and should be read alongside Sections 96, 97 and 99–100 of the BSA.

Bare Act: Section 98 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

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.

Explanation of Section 98 BSA

1. Meaning of Section 98 BSA

Section 98 permits evidence to explain the meaning of words in a document when those words are clear on their face but do not correspond meaningfully with the existing facts.

The provision recognises that a person may use an incorrect name, place or description while referring to an identifiable subject matter. Evidence of the surrounding circumstances may help the court determine what the document was intended to refer to.

However, this does not permit a party to rewrite a document merely by claiming that a different meaning was intended. The evidence must help establish the connection between the document’s language and the actual circumstances.

2. What is latent ambiguity?

A latent ambiguity is an uncertainty that becomes apparent only when the language of a document is applied to external facts.

For example, a deed may clearly refer to a house in a particular city. On reading the deed alone, the description appears straightforward. However, an examination of the facts reveals that the person executing the deed owns no house in that city.

The discrepancy creates a latent ambiguity because the problem arises from applying the description to the real-world circumstances rather than from unclear wording on the face of the document.

Section 98 permits evidence to establish whether the words were used in a peculiar sense that identifies the intended subject matter.

3. Illustration: A house in Kolkata

The statutory illustration explains the rule.

A executes a deed selling to B “my house in Kolkata”. However, A does not own a house in Kolkata. A owns a house in Howrah, and B has been in possession of that house since the deed was executed.

The court may consider evidence of these circumstances to determine whether the deed referred to the house in Howrah.

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

The evidence does not simply replace one property with another based on an unsupported assertion. Rather, it establishes a possible connection between the description in the deed and the existing property.

4. Why is external evidence permitted?

Section 98 recognises that documentary language does not always correspond perfectly with the facts to which it refers. A mistaken place name, an inaccurate description or a similar discrepancy may make the literal wording meaningless when applied to the circumstances.

The provision allows courts to consider relevant evidence to determine whether the words were used in a particular sense.

This approach supports the interpretation of documents according to their connection with the actual subject matter. It does not, however, override other legal requirements governing the validity, execution or enforceability of the document.

5. Application to property documents

Section 98 is particularly relevant to deeds, conveyances and other documents identifying immovable property.

A document may describe property by its location, boundaries, survey number, area or other identifying particulars. If one description does not correspond with the existing facts, the court may need to examine whether the language was used in a peculiar sense.

For example, a deed may refer to a property by an incorrect locality name, while other circumstances establish a connection with a particular property owned by the transferor.

Evidence may be admissible under Section 98 if the statutory conditions are satisfied. The court must still determine whether the evidence identifies the intended property or attempts impermissibly to create a transaction different from the one recorded.

Section 97 vs Section 98 BSA

Sections 97 and 98 deal with opposite situations involving the application of documentary language to existing facts.

Basis	Section 97 BSA	Section 98 BSA
Subject	Exclusion of evidence against application of a document to existing facts	Evidence where the document’s language is unmeaning in reference to existing facts
Language	Plain and clear	Plain and clear
Application to facts	The language accurately applies to the existing facts	The language does not meaningfully apply to the existing facts
Evidentiary rule	Evidence cannot ordinarily be given to show that the document was not meant to apply to facts it accurately describes	Evidence may be given to show that the language was used in a peculiar sense
Example	A deed describes an estate at Rampur containing 100 bighas, and the owner has an estate matching that description	A deed refers to the owner’s house in Kolkata, but the owner has a house in Howrah instead

Key distinction: Section 97 prevents evidence from displacing a clear description that accurately fits the facts. Section 98 allows evidence to explain clear language that does not fit the facts.

Section 96 vs Section 98 BSA

Section 96 deals with ambiguity or defects apparent on the face of a document, whereas Section 98 deals with language that is clear on its face but becomes unmeaning when applied to existing facts.

Basis	Section 96 BSA	Section 98 BSA
Type of problem	Patent ambiguity	A form of latent ambiguity
Source of uncertainty	The wording itself is ambiguous or defective	The wording does not correspond meaningfully with existing circumstances
General rule	Evidence cannot be used to explain the facial ambiguity or supply its defects	Evidence may be used to establish that the words were used in a peculiar sense
Example	A written agreement specifies two alternative prices without stating which applies	A deed refers to a house in Kolkata, although the transferor owns a house in Howrah instead

The distinction is important because the two provisions prescribe different rules for admitting external evidence.

Important Case Laws on Section 98 BSA

The following decisions concern Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the predecessor provision to Section 98 BSA, or closely related principles of documentary interpretation. They were not originally decided under the BSA.

1. Bharmu Nagappa Naik v. Manianath Das Desai

Citation: AIR 1959 Kant 165

Court: Mysore High Court, as reported in the Karnataka jurisdiction’s law reports.

Legal principle: The case concerned surety bonds whose terms were considered in relation to the court orders pursuant to which they had been executed. The issue involved whether the language of the bonds could be understood by examining the surrounding circumstances and the orders connected with their execution.

Relevance to Section 98 BSA: The decision illustrates the principle that when documentary language does not meaningfully fit the existing circumstances, the court may need to examine relevant external facts to understand the document’s intended operation.

2. Alla Basavapunnareddy v. Kalaga Krishnayya

Date: 16 June 1965

Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Also Read: Section 96 BSA: Exclusion of Evidence to Explain Ambiguous Document

Legal principle: The court discussed Sections 95 and 97 of the former Indian Evidence Act in the context of interpreting documents. It explained that these provisions permit evidence in particular situations where the language of a document does not accurately correspond with the relevant facts or applies imperfectly to competing sets of facts.

The decision also discussed the principle that a false description does not necessarily defeat a document where the intended subject matter can be identified from the relevant circumstances.

Relevance to Section 98 BSA: The judgment helps explain why the law permits evidence to identify the subject matter of a document when its literal description does not fit the existing facts.

3. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Ltd.

Date: 27 February 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India

Legal principle: The Supreme Court discussed the rules under Sections 94 and 95 of the former Indian Evidence Act, corresponding substantially to Sections 97 and 98 BSA. The judgment distinguished between language that accurately applies to existing facts and language that is plain in itself but unmeaning when applied to those facts.

The Court examined contractual language identifying a captive coal source in the context of surrounding circumstances and contemporaneous documents. It considered whether the identity of the source could be discerned from the agreement and related records.

Relevance to Section 98 BSA: The judgment provides a recent Supreme Court discussion of the distinction between Sections 97 and 98 BSA’s predecessor provisions. It illustrates the importance of examining the document alongside relevant circumstances where the language does not meaningfully fit the facts.

Important qualification: The case involved interpretation of a commercial agreement and related contractual provisions. It should not be described as a judgment exclusively deciding the scope of Section 98 BSA.

Practical Examples of Section 98 BSA

Situation	Application of Section 98
A deed refers to a house in Kolkata, but the transferor owns no house there and owns a house in Howrah that the transferee has occupied since execution	Evidence of the circumstances may establish that the deed referred to the house in Howrah
A deed contains an incorrect locality name, but other facts identify the intended property	Evidence may be relevant to establish the peculiar sense in which the description was used
A deed accurately identifies the property by its description and the description matches the existing facts	Section 97 may be relevant instead
A document contains two alternative prices without specifying which applies	Section 96 may be relevant because the ambiguity appears on the face of the document
A party merely claims that the document should refer to another property without supporting circumstances	Section 98 does not automatically permit the document to be rewritten

These examples are illustrative. Admissibility depends on the nature of the discrepancy, the evidence offered and the other applicable legal requirements.

Importance of Section 98 BSA

Section 98 is significant in documentary interpretation for several reasons:

1. Helps identify the subject matter: It allows relevant evidence to clarify which property or subject matter a document refers to when its description does not fit the existing facts.
2. Recognises latent ambiguity: It distinguishes uncertainty arising from external circumstances from ambiguity apparent on the face of a document.
3. Supports accurate interpretation: It allows courts to consider relevant circumstances rather than treating an inaccurate description as automatically decisive.
4. Protects documentary integrity: It permits clarification without creating a general right to rewrite written instruments.
5. Assists in property and contractual disputes: It is relevant when deeds, agreements or other documents contain descriptions that do not correspond with the actual circumstances.

Key Points for Law Students and Judiciary Exams

• Section 98 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with evidence concerning a document whose language is unmeaning in reference to existing facts.
• It substantially corresponds to Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The language must be plain in itself but must not make sense when applied to the existing facts.
• Evidence may be admitted to show that the words were used in a peculiar sense.
• The statutory illustration concerns a deed referring to a house in Kolkata when the transferor actually owns a house in Howrah.
• Section 98 deals with a form of latent ambiguity.
• Section 97 applies where clear language accurately fits existing facts; Section 98 applies where clear language does not meaningfully fit them.
• Section 96 concerns ambiguity or defects apparent on the face of the document.
• Bharmu Nagappa Naik v. Manianath Das Desai and Alla Basavapunnareddy v. Kalaga Krishnayya are relevant decisions under the predecessor law.
• West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Ltd. provides a recent Supreme Court discussion of the corresponding provisions governing documentary interpretation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is Section 98 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

Section 98 permits evidence to show that the language of a document, although plain in itself, was used in a peculiar sense when it does not meaningfully correspond with existing facts.

Which section of the Indian Evidence Act corresponds to Section 98 BSA?

Section 98 BSA substantially corresponds to Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

What is latent ambiguity under Section 98 BSA?

Latent ambiguity arises when a document’s language appears clear but becomes uncertain or meaningless when applied to the actual circumstances. Section 98 permits evidence to clarify the peculiar sense in which the words were used.

Can evidence be given to identify property under Section 98 BSA?

Yes, where the statutory conditions are satisfied, evidence may be given to establish which property the document was intended to identify. The evidence must clarify the connection between the language and existing facts rather than simply replace the transaction with a different one.

What is the difference between Sections 97 and 98 BSA?

Section 97 prevents evidence from showing that clear language was not intended to apply to facts it accurately describes. Section 98 allows evidence where clear language does not meaningfully fit the existing facts.

Which case laws are relevant to Section 98 BSA?

Relevant decisions under the predecessor provision include Bharmu Nagappa Naik v. Manianath Das Desai, AIR 1959 Kant 165, and Alla Basavapunnareddy v. Kalaga Krishnayya, decided on 16 June 1965. The Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Ltd. also discusses the corresponding rules of documentary interpretation.

Conclusion

Section 98 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 permits evidence to explain a document where its language is clear in itself but does not meaningfully correspond with the existing facts. It addresses a form of latent ambiguity and enables courts to determine whether the words were used in a peculiar sense to refer to an identifiable subject matter.

The provision must be distinguished from Section 97, which protects the application of clear language to facts it accurately describes, and Section 96, which concerns ambiguity apparent on the face of the document. Understanding these distinctions is essential when interpreting deeds, property descriptions and contractual documents.