Section 100 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies

Section 100 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

When 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.

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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Court Sec 2(1)(a) Document Sec 2(1)(b) Evidence Sec 2(1)(c)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 100

Section 100 provides that when 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.

Partial Factual Fit: Applies where a description is split across two properties (e.g. 'I agree to sell my land at X in the occupation of Y', and the seller has land at X not occupied by Y, and land occupied by Y at another place).
Admissibility of Extrinsic Proof: Permits parties to lead evidence showing which parcel of land was intended by the parties.
Maxim Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocet: Codifies the principle that a false or imperfect description does not vitiate the transaction if the subject can be identified.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Subramaniam v. Ramaswamy (AIR 1932 Mad 589): Held that where a deed describes land with partially inconsistent boundaries and survey numbers, extrinsic evidence is admissible under Section 97 IEA (Section 100 BSA) to show which parcel was intended.
Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel v. Lalbhai Trikamlal Mills Ltd. (AIR 1958 SC 512): Distinguished latent ambiguities admitting extrinsic evidence under Section 97 IEA from incurable patent defects.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In partition or mortgage suits where the deed mentions an old municipal number that conflicts with a new colony name, lead municipal assessment records and physical possession evidence under Section 100 to reconcile the partial discrepancy.