UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

CHANDIGARH

PROJECT ON PATENT AND LATENT AMBIGUITY

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MS. ARSHWINDER KAUR RAAGHAV SAPRA

FACULTY OF LAW, B.COM.LL.B. 7TH SEM

ROLL NUMBER- 312/20

UILS, PANJAB UNIVERSITY

Page 1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Though, I have put in a lot of efforts into the making of this project. However, it would not have
been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend my
sincere thanks to all of them.

I thank my God for providing me the constant strength to stay focused and complete my project on
time.

I am highly indebted to the Teacher In charge Ms. Arshwinder Kaur for her guidance and constant
supervision as well as for providing the necessary knowledge required for the completion of this
project.

I would like to express my gratitude to my parents for their kind cooperation and encouragement
which helped me in completion of the project.

My thanks and appreciations also go to my classmates and friends and to the people who have
willing helped me out with their abilities by sharing resources necessary to complete this project at
this hour of need.

RAAGHAV SAPRA

312/20

B.COM.LL.B. 7TH SEMESTER

Page 2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

2. INTRODUCTION

3. PATENT AMBIGUITY

4. LATENT AMBIGUITY

5. TEST OF DIFFERENCE

6. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LATENT AND PATENT AMBIGUITY

7. EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE UNDER PATENT AMBIGUITY

8. EVIDENCE PERTINENT TO LATENT DEFECTS

9. EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN AMBIGUITY IN A DOCUMENT

10. CONCLUSION

11. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 3
 INTRODUCTION

The rule about admission or exclusion of extrinsic evidence has been laid down under section 93 to
98 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such exclusion or admission of extrinsic evidence is in connection
with the facts contained in a document which either a contract or not. The word ambiguity deals
with the quality of being open to more than one interpretation or the inexactness of the thing.
Section 93-100 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with ambiguity of documents which is led by
uncertain language or the applicability of facts stated in the document which create doubts.
Generally, the principles given the provisos of section 93-100 is categorised into two category –

1. Patent Ambiguity (section 93 and 94)

2. Latent Defects (section 95, 96 and 97)

The patent ambiguity deals with apparently defective document which can be figured out by any
person of ordinary intelligence. The principle laid in section 93 and 94 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872 is laid as per the view that the given defect cannot be allowed to remove by oral evidence. The
theory behind this ideology is that the facts presented in the documents were so apparent that it
would be obvious for the parties to know. Hence it is deemed to be ‘late’ to remove such defect as
the dispute has been arisen.

The latent defects on the other hand are not so apparent on the face of record. So, if the document
had been given a plain reading, it would be perceived as the facts stated in the documents are
correct and conclusive. Whereas when an attempt has been made to apply the stated facts practically
then conjecture of the document can be easily identified. The defect emerged is not in the language
used in the document but the application of language to the facts stated in. The general principle is
that the evidence can be given to remove such defects because the nature of defect is hidden.

Page 4
 PATENT AMBIGUITY

Patent ambiguity refers to the ambiguity or an uncertain meaning on the face of the document/
agreement/contract. In such ambiguity, the testator’s intention on the face remains unclear. It is also
known as intrinsic ambiguity.
Patent ambiguity is based on the Latin maxim Prima Facie, which means something that appears on
the face of the record. That means the meaning of the agreement on the face is unclear or not
understandable.

Section 93 IEA – Exclusion of Evidence to Explain or Amend

Ambiguous Document
Section 93 of the Indian Evidence Act says that evidence cannot be given to explain or amend
(change) an ambiguous document when the document’s language on the face appears to be
ambiguous or defective to show its meaning or to rectify its defects.
Example: Rohan agrees, in writing, to sell a Goldfish to Priya for rupees 2000 or 3000. Here, the
evidence cannot be given to show which price was to be given because the document on the face is
ambiguous.

Section 94 IEA – Exclusion of Evidence Against Application of

Document to Existing Facts
Section 94 of the Indian Evidence Act says that evidence may not be given to show that the
language of such a document is not meant to apply to a particular fact. For this, two essentials must
be fulfilled:
1. The language of the document on the face of it is plain.
2. That such language accurately applies to the existing facts.
Example: X, by deed, sells “my plot at Gwalior containing 300 bighas” to Y. Now the existing fact
is that X has a plot at Gwalior containing 300 bighas. Evidence may not be given of the fact that the
plot meant to be sold was one situated at a different place and of another size.

Page 5
• Case Laws Related to Patent Ambiguity
Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel vs Lalbhai Trikumlal Mills Ltd (1958): The Supreme Court of India held
that it wouldn’t be open for the parties or the court to remove the vagueness or uncertainty by
relying upon extraneous evidence.
The General Court Martial & Ors vs Col. Aniltej Singh Dhaliwal (1997): The Supreme Court held
that section 94 of the Evidence Act shall apply only when the document’s execution is admitted, and
there are no vitiating circumstances against it.

Page 6
 LATENT AMBIGUITY

Latent ambiguity refers to the ambiguity that, on the face, appears to be certain and meaningful, but
on execution, it does not make any relevance to the existing facts or the present circumstances. Or
simply, it is not apparent on the face of the record.

Section 95 IEA – Evidence as to Document Unmeaning in

Reference to Existing Facts

Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act says that evidence may be given to show that the language of
the document is to be used in a particular sense. This can only be done when the language of such
document on the face of it is plain, but it does not match with reference to the existing facts.
Example: X sells to Y, by deed, “my house in Navi Mumbai”. The existing fact is that X has no
house in Navi Mumbai, but it appears that he had a house at Bandra, of which Y had been in
possession since the execution of the deed. All these facts may be proved to show that the deed was
related to the house at Bandra.

Section 96 IEA – Evidence as to Application of Language Which

Can Apply to One Only of Several Persons

As per section 96 of the Indian Evidence Act, whenever the language of a document is used in such
a manner that:
• (a) the facts are meant to apply to a particular thing, and
• (b) are not meant to apply to more than a particular thing;
in such a case, evidence may be given to show that a particular mentioned fact relating to:
• (a) persons or
• (b) things
is intended to be applied in a particular fact.
Example: Khushi agrees to sell to Chitra for rupees 2000 “my white horse”. Khushi has two white
horses. Here, the evidence may be given to show which horse was meant to be sold.

Page 7
Section 97 IEA – Evidence as to Application of Language to One
of Two Sets of Facts, to Neither of Which the Whole Correctly
Applies
This section says that evidence may be given when the language of the document is such that:
• (a) it partly applies to one set of the existing facts, and
• (b) partly to another set of the existing facts.
But in neither case, it correctly applies as a whole to the document. Thus, evidence may be given to
show the meaning of its exact application.
Example: Rohan agrees to sell to Priya “my land at Jalandhar in possession of Siddharth”. Rohan
has a piece of land at Jalandhar but not in possession of Siddharth, and he has a piece of land in
possession of Siddharth, but it is not at Jalandhar. As the facts of the deed:
• partly applied to one set of existing facts (i.e. Rohan has the piece of land at Jalandhar but not
in possession of Siddharth), and
• partly to another set of existing facts (that the piece of land is in possession of Siddharth but is
not in Jalandhar)
But neither applies as a whole correctly. Here, evidence may be given of facts showing which land
he meant to sell.

Section 98 IEA – Evidence as to Meaning of Illegible Characters,

etc.
Sometimes the meaning of the local language of a particular area is completely unfamiliar with that
of the other area. So, section 98 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that evidence may be given to
make understand the meaning of a particular word in a particular sense. It includes illegible or not
commonly intelligible characters of foreign, obsolete, technical, local and provincial expressions of
abbreviations and of words, etc.
Example: Let’s say, in Bhopal, oranges mean banana, and in Kerala, oranges mean oranges. A
(resident of Bhopal) agrees to sell to B (resident of Kerala) 5 kg of oranges. Now A delivers 5 kg of
Banana to B. Evidence may be given to show the exact meaning of the deed.

Page 8
• Case Law Related to Latent Ambiguity
Mangala Waman Karandikar (D) TR LRS Vs Prakash Damodar Ranade (2010): In this case, the
Indian Supreme Court held that sections 92 and 95 of the Evidence Act would not be applied if the
document was clear-cut and unambiguous. When the provisions of the contract are evident and
simple, there is no necessity for looking into extraneous pieces of evidence.

Page 9
 TEST OF DIFFERENCE

The test to find the difference that whether the ambiguity is a patent ambiguity or a latent ambiguity
is to put the document in the hands of an ordinary intelligent educated person.

1. If on reading the document the ambiguity can be detected and no definite meaning can be
understood then such ambiguity is patent ambiguity.

2. If on perusal of document no ambiguity can be found by him and the meaning is definite
but that document is applied with the instrument of facts, the ambiguity arises and its
meaning becomes indefinite, then the ambiguity is the latent ambiguity.

DIFFERENTIATING THE AMBIGUITIES:

On The Basis of Provisions:

1. Section 93 and 94 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 elaborately explains the nature of patent
ambiguity.
2. Section 95, 96 and 97 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 specifies the provisions of latent defects.

On The Basis of Nature:

1. The nature of patent ambiguity deals with the apparent defect that is recorded on the
document of deed or agreement.
2. The nature of latent defect deals with hidden defect that is only surfaced when the facts of the
documents are practically applied.

Page 10
On The Basis of Admissibility of evidence:

1. The admissibility of evidence under patent ambiguity is not allowed as it implies that the
facts stated therein were obvious to the knowledge of parties.
2. The admissibility of evidence under latent defect is allowed as giving benefit of doubt to
clear the circumstances of the facts presented in case.

On The Basis of Acknowledgment of Ambiguity:

1. The patent ambiguity is acknowledged on prima facie inspection.

2. The latent defect cannot be inspected on prima facie.

Page 11
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PATENT AMBIGUITY AND LATENT
AMBIGUITY
.No. Patent Ambiguity
When the language of the
document is so uncertain
and effective that no
1 meaning can be granted
to the document then it
is called as Patent
Ambiguity.
The patent ambiguity is
personal in nature and it
2
is related to the person
executing the document.
Oral evidence is not
3 allowed for the removal
of patent ambiguity.
The rule on which the
patent ambiguity is based
4 is that the patent
ambiguity makes the
document useless.
A patent ambiguity is on
the face of the document
5 and is evident from
inspection of the
document itself.
Page 12
Latent Ambiguity
When the language of a
document is certain and
meaningful but the
document makes no
relevance in the present
circumstance then it is latent
ambiguity.
The latent ambiguity is of
objective nature and it is
related to the subject matter
and object of the document.
To remove latent ambiguity,
oral evidence is allowed.
Giving oral evidence in case
of latent ambiguity is based
on the principle the latent
ambiguity does not make a
document useless.
Latent ambiguity is not
evident from prima facie
inspection of the document
but it becomes apparent
when the language of a
document is applied to
existing circumstances.
 EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE UNDER PATENT AMBIGUITY

By the virtue of Section 93 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the proviso for the exclusion of evidence
in case of explanation or amendment of ambiguous document states that when the defect in the
document is so apparent that it could not be neglected at first read then in such situation no evidence
must be supplied to justify such defect.
Illustration – If a deed contains blanks and is signed by both the parties then evidence cannot be
given of facts which would show how they were meant to fill.While no extrinsic evidence can be
given to remove such defect, the court may if is possible, fill up the gaps or blanks in a document
with the help of the other contents of the document. It means that the statement in one part of
document can be used to remove defect in some other part. Thus, where a lease deed left blanks at
the place where the date of commencement should have been mentioned, but in another part, it said
that the first instalment of rent would be paid on certain date, the Allahabad High Court held that
the date of the payment of the first instalment could reasonably be fixed as the date of
commencement.
In Kandamath Cine enterprises P. Ltd. v. John Philipose; A.I.R. 1990, a contract for the sale of a
part of the land of 5 acres, described the part to be sold as “one acre of front land.” It was held that
what constituted the “front land” for this purpose was ascertainable. There was no conclusion about
the language used and, therefore, section 93 was not attracted.
Pursuant to Section 94 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the provision was laid as to the exclusion of
evidence against the application of document to an existing fact wherein it was stated that 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.
Illustration – A sells to B, by deed “my estate at Rampur containing 100 bighas”. A has an estate at
Rampur containing 100 bighas. Evidence may not be given of the fact that the estate implied here
was Ballarpur instead of Rampur with some different size.

The illustration appended to the section makes the principle very clear. This second type of patent
defect arises when the language of a document is quite clear and it clearly applies to the facts stated
therein, no extrinsic evidence can be offered to show that the document was not intended to apply to
such facts.

Page 13
Section 94 comes into play only when there is a document and its language has to be considered
with reference to a particular factual situation. The section applies when the execution of the
document has been admitted and no vitiating factor has been proved against it. Where the document
in question was recorded of the proceeding of the Board and contained an admission under
signature of the parties, it was held that an admission could be explained by the maker of it and,
therefore, oral evidence of explanatory nature was admissible.

Page 14
 EVIDENCE PERTINENT TO LATENT DEFECTS
As per laid under the provision of Section 95 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 the evidence as to
document unmeaning in reference to existing facts explains as when the language of a document is
plain but in its application to the existing facts it is meaningless, evidence can be given to show how
it was intended to apply to those facts.

Illustration – A sells to B, by deed, “my house in Calcutta”. A had no house in Calcutta, but it
appears that he had a house at Howrah, of which B had been in possession since the execution of
the deed.

In the above given illustration, a house is agreed to be sold by a written deed. The house is
described to be located at a particular place or in particular city. It turns out that the seller has no
house at that place or in that city, but has a house in nearby place and that has also been in the
occupation of the buyer. Evidence can be given to show that such house was meant to be sold.
Section 96 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states the evidence as to application of language which can
apply to one only of several persons which explains when the language of a document is clear and is
intended to apply to only one thing or one set of facts, but its implication to the existing facts makes
it tough to imply as which particular thing is intended. In such a situation an evidence can, be
offered.

Illustration – A agrees to accompany B to Hyderabad. Evidence can be suggested showing whether

Hyderabad in the Deccan or Hyderabad in Sind was meant.

Where a promissory note mentioned a date according to the local calendar and also according to
international calendar, but the two dates turned out to be different, it was held that evidence could
be offered to show which date was meant.
Pursuant to Section 97 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays the provision for the evidence as to
application of language to one of two sets of facts to neither of which the whole correctly applies.
The principle of the section describes when the ambiguity arises when the language of the
document applies partly to one set of facts and partly to other instead of applying completely to
either set of facts, evidence can be shown to justify the matter.

Page 15
Illustration – A agrees to sell to B “my land at X in the occupation of Y”. A has land at X, but not in
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.

The illustration appended states that a house property is sold by written deed. The house is
described to be the sellers house at Ghaziabad now in the occupation of the buyer. Subsequently it
turns out that the seller has a house at Ghaziabad but that is not in the occupation of the buyer and
he has a house in the occupation of the buyer, but that is not at Ghaziabad.

Page 16
 EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN AMBIGUITY IN A DOCUMENT

Indian Evidence Act lays down the provision for including extrinsic evidence in order to explain
ambiguity in a document.

When extrinsic evidence cannot be given

Section 93: Exclusion of evidence while explaining or amendment of an ambiguous document

Section 93 of the Indian Evidence Act, deals with the patent ambiguity and no oral evidence is
given to remove the patent ambiguity.

According to section 93 when the language of the document is ambiguous or defective on its face,
the evidence which can show its meaning or supply its effects may not be given.

Illustration

An agreement is made between A and B that A will sell his crops for Rs. 1000 or 2000. The
evidence cannot be given that which price was to be given.

In the case of Keshav Lal v. Lal Bhai T. Mills Ltd., it was held by the Supreme Court that it would
not be open for the parties or the court to remove the ambiguity or vagueness by relying upon the
extrinsic evidence.

Section 94: In the application of document to existing facts, the application against it to be excluded

According to section 94, when the language in the document is simple and plain itself and it applies
accurately to the existing facts, the evidence to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts
may not be given.

Page 17
When there is neither a patent ambiguity nor a latent ambiguity then the evidence cannot be given
to contradict this.

In the case of General Court Marshal v. Col. Anil Tej Singh Dhaliwal it was held by the Supreme
Court that section 94 applies only when the execution of the document is admitted before the court
and there are no vitiating circumstances against it.

When extrinsic evidence can be given

Section 95: Evidence allowed to be given when the document is plain in itself

Section 95 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with latent ambiguity and oral evidence can be given
for removing latent ambiguity. When the language which has been used in the document is simple
and plain but it is not in the meaning to existing facts due to the mistakes in the descriptive evidence
and such mistake can be shown that it was used in a peculiar sense.

Illustration

A sold his house to B stating in the deed as “my house in Lucknow”.

But, A has no house in Lucknow but he has a house in Kanpur in which B is living since the deed
was executed. Then the evidence can be used to prove the fact the deed was related to the house in
Kanpur.

Section 96: Evidence allowed when the application of the language which is meant to apply on only
one, applies to several persons

When the language of the facts is such that, which is meant to apply on only one person applies on
several persons, then the evidence may be given under section 96 of the Indian Evidence Act to
clarify that which of those persons or things, that fact is intended to apply on.

Page 18
Illustration

A agrees to sell his white cow to B for Rs. 2000 and in the deed he has mentioned “my white cow”.
A has two white cows. Evidence can be given to prove that which white cow he meant in that deed.

Section 97: When on the application of the language of two or more facts neither of them applies
correctly, then evidence to be admitted

According to section 97 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the language used in a fact applies to
one set existing fact partly and partly to another set of existing fact, but if applied as a whole, it does
not apply to either correctly then the evidence can be presented before the court to clarify that
which of the facts was actually intended.

Illustration

X sells his land to Y stating “My land at A in the occupation of B”. X had land at A but it is not in
occupation of B and X has land which is in the occupation of B but it is not at A. Then X can
present evidence before the court that which land he actually wants to sell.

Section 98: Evidence given to show the meaning of illegible characters

To show the meaning of illegible characters or characters which are not commonly intelligible
character such as characters of foreign, obsolete, technical, local or provincial expressions of words
or abbreviations which is used in a peculiar sense, evidence can be presented before the court under
section 98 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Illustration

A sells his artwork to B stating “all my mods”. Here, what A meant by the term “mods” can be
clarified by the way of admission of evidence.

Who may give evidence of agreement varying terms of the document

Page 19
Under section 99 of the Indian Evidence Act, those persons also can give evidence who are not
parties to a document or representative-in-interest regarding any fact which shows a
contemporaneous agreement varying the terms of the document.

As section 92 of the Act excludes the party to the contract from producing the document but it does
not exclude those who are the parties to contract. So, under this section i.e., section 99 the same
provision is being repeated.

In the case of Bai Hira Devi v. Official Assignee of Bombay section 92 deals only with the matter
related to contracts, grants and other depositions of the property but section 99 deals with all types
of document, whether it is a contract or not. Section 99 speaks only about varying the terms of a
document.

Provisions of Indian Succession Acts related to wills to be excluded

According to section 100 of the Indian Evidence Act, the provisions laid down under Chapter
VI of the Indian Evidence Act are to be taken into effect on any of the provisions regarding the
construction of will under the Indian Succession Act,1865.

Chapter VI of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the provisions related to the exclusion of oral
evidence by documentary evidence. There are certain circumstances when the oral evidence cannot
be admitted before the court for the support of documentary and there are also instances when the
oral evidence is admissible. All the provisions have to be dealt with according to this chapter. The
provisions related to the will under the Indian Succession Act is excluded from these provisions.

Page 20
 CONCLUSION

Section 93 to 97 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 specifically deals with ambiguous documents.
Therefore, the provisions laid helps to categorise the type of ambiguity delt within a deed or an
agreement. As observed, there are two categories of ambiguous documents – patent and latent. The
presence of patent ambiguity can be figured out with person of ordinary intelligence whereas latent
defects require the justification of practical application of the facts stated in the documents. Parties
could acknowledge the deliberate cause for ambiguity or they can mend the situation by providing
proper evidence to the case. The hon’ble Supreme Court have specifically revised the definitions of
patent and latent ambiguity while settling the dispute between Anglo American Metallurgical Coal
(AAMC) and MMTC Ltd.
Chapter VI of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the provisions related to the exclusion of oral
evidence by documentary evidence. There are certain circumstances when the oral evidence cannot
be admitted before the court for the support of documentary and there are also instances when the
oral evidence is admissible. All the provisions have to be dealt with according to this chapter. The
provisions related to the will under the Indian Succession Act is excluded from these provisions.

Page 21
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Lal Batul, The Law of Evidence, 22nd Edition (2018), Central Law Agency.
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Prachi Bhardwaj, latent and patent ambiguities as explained by Supreme Court, The SCC Online
Blog
• • Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of the law of Evidence, Central Law Publications 2018

Page 22