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 a description fits partly one set of facts and partly another, but does not fully match either, evidence may be given to show which was intended. It applies where a single description could reasonably refer to two different things, places, or people. Consequence: the court can admit such evidence to resolve the ambiguity.
Example
Ravi tells Priya he will sell "my land at Sector 10 in the occupation of Arjun." Ravi has land at Sector 10 that Arjun does not occupy, and he also has land occupied by Arjun but at Sector 11. Evidence may be led to show which parcel Ravi meant to sell.
Bare Act
Enacted textWhen the language used applies partly to one set 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.
Illustrations
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.