Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons:
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.
Image Source: gosouthonline.co.za
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Illustration:
(a) A agrees to sell to B, for Rs. 1,000, “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 В to Hyderabad. Evidence may be given of facts showing whether Hyderabad in the Dekkhan or Hyderabad in Sindh was meant.
Comments:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Section 96 deals with another type of latent ambiguity. It is a modification of the rule of Section 94. Where the language of the document is plain and is intended to apply more than one persons or things to which the description applies, oral evidence can be given to clarify the facts which show to which person or thing it was intended to apply. Illustrations (а) and (b) show the meaning of it. Illustration (а) makes it clear that where A agrees to sell his white horse to В at Rs. 1000/-. A has two white horses. Evidence can be given of facts which show which of them was meant.
There can be no doubt that parole evidence as to the identity of a party to a deed is always admissible, but in considering such evidence it is paramount importance to bear in mind the indicata of identity afforded by the deed itself. When there is dispute on two dates regarding admissibility of promissory note, evidence could be offered to show which date was meant.