Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies
AI Assist
Summary
When words in an agreement or statement fit partly one set of facts and partly another, but do not correctly fit either as a whole, parties may lead evidence to show which of the two facts the words were meant to describe. It applies where a description could point to two different properties or persons. The consequence is that the court may consider external facts to determine the intended meaning.
Example
Ravi agrees to sell "my land at X in the occupation of Meera". He owns land at X not occupied by Meera, and land occupied by Meera that is not at X. Evidence may be given to show which parcel Ravi actually meant to sell.
Bare Act
Enacted textWhen 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.
Previous year papers
Pick your exam. we'll email the most recent paper.