Section 97 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Exclusion of evidence against application of document to existing facts

Section 97 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Exclusion of evidence against application of document to existing facts

Official Bare Act Text

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

When language used in a document is plain in itself, and when it applies accurately to existing facts, evidence may not be given to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts.

Illustrations

A sells to B, by deed, "my estate at Rampur containing one hundred bighas". A has an estate at Rampur containing one hundred bighas. Evidence may not be given of the fact that the estate meant to be sold was one situated at a different place and of a different size.

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

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

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 97

Section 97 establishes that when language used in a document is plain in itself, and applies accurately to existing facts, evidence may not be given to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts.

Plain & Unambiguous Language: Applies where the contractual terms match physical realities without contradiction (e.g. 'I sell my estate at Rampur containing 100 bighas').
Exclusion of Extrinsic Evidence: A party cannot lead oral evidence to show that they secretly intended to sell an estate at Sultanpur or a different acreage.
Certainty of Commercial Titles: Protects purchasers and commercial parties against post-facto claims of unexpressed subjective intentions.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim (AIR 1959 SC 24): The Supreme Court affirmed that where the language of a grant or deed is clear and applies to existing facts, it is not permissible to construe it contrary to its terms using oral evidence under Section 94 IEA (Section 97 BSA).
Delta International Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar Ganeriwalla (1999) 4 SCC 545: Held that the intention of parties must be gathered from the plain terms of the agreement; extrinsic evidence cannot override unambiguous clauses.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When defending an eviction or property suit where the lease deed or agreement has clear clauses, oppose any oral witness testimony seeking to explain that 'the parties actually agreed to something else' under Section 97.