Section 99 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons

Section 99 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons

Official Bare Act Text

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

When the facts are such that the language used might have been meant to apply to any one, and could not have been meant to apply to more than one, of several persons or things, evidence may be given of facts which show which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to.

Illustrations

(a) A agrees to sell to B, for one thousand rupees, "my white horse". A has two white horses. Evidence may be given of facts which show which of them was meant.

(b) A agrees to accompany B to Ramgarh. Evidence may be given of facts showing whether Ramgarh in Rajasthan or Ramgarh in Uttarakhand was meant.

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 99

Section 99 establishes that when the facts are such that the language used might have been meant to apply to any one, and could not have been meant to apply to more than one, of several persons or things, evidence may be given of facts which show which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to.

Equivocal Reference: Applies where a document accurately describes more than one person or thing (e.g. 'I agree to sell my white horse to John for ₹5,000', and the seller owns two white horses).
Oral Evidence Permitted: Evidence may be given of surrounding conversations and circumstances to show which horse or person was intended.
Latent Ambiguity Resolution: Resolves duplicate or plural matches without invalidating the underlying covenant.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar (AIR 1951 SC 103): The Supreme Court held that in construing testamentary dispositions, where language applies equally to several relatives, extrinsic evidence of the testator's personal affection and circumstances is admissible under Section 96 IEA (Section 99 BSA).
Navneet Lal v. Gokul (1976) 1 SCC 630: Affirmed that the court must place itself in the armchair of the testator to determine which legatee was intended where descriptions match multiple persons.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In wills and trust deeds where two sons or cousins share similar names or initials, tender family pedigree charts, personal correspondence, and prior gift deeds under Section 99 to prove which individual was intended.