Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023Exclusion of Evidence Against Application of Document to Existing Facts[Section 97]
IntroductionIn certain cases, the language used in a document is clear and unambiguous and also fits perfectly with the existing facts. In such situations, the law does not permit parties to lead evidence to show that the document was intended to apply to some other facts. Section 97 embodies this principle and excludes contradictory evidence.

Statutory Provision
Section 97 provides that:

• When the 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.

Nature of Ambiguity Covered

• This section deals with a patent clarity:
  • The language is clear.
  • The facts exactly match the description.
• No ambiguity—either patent or latent—exists.
• Any attempt to apply the document to different facts is barred.

Illustration
Example:

• A sells to B, by deed, “my estate at Rampur containing one hundred bighas.”
• A actually owns:
  • An estate at Rampur, and
  • The estate contains exactly one hundred bighas.
• Evidence cannot be given to show that:
  • A intended to sell an estate situated elsewhere, or
  • Of a different size.

Principle Underlying Section 97

• Where words are clear and facts fit perfectly, the document must speak for itself.
• Courts will not allow:
  • Oral evidence,
  • Extrinsic facts, or
  • Explanations
    that contradict the clear application of the document.
• This rule preserves:
  • Certainty of written instruments,
  • Sanctity of documents, and
  • Stability of transactions.

Type of Defect Covered

• This section addresses a second type of patent defect, where:
  • The document is clear,
  • The facts correspond exactly,
  • Yet one party seeks to displace the obvious meaning.
• Such evidence is strictly excluded.

Exception – Explanatory Evidence

• While contradictory evidence is excluded,
• Explanatory evidence may sometimes be admissible, especially in cases of:
  • Admissions,
  • Clarifications by the maker of the document.

Judicial Pronouncement
In General Court Martial v. Col. Anil Tej Singh Dhaliwal, it was held that:

• An admission contained in a document may be explained by its maker.
• Oral evidence of an explanatory nature is admissible.
• However, such explanation must not contradict the clear application of the document to existing facts.

Key Points to Remember

• Language is clear and unambiguous.
• Description perfectly fits existing facts.
• No oral evidence allowed to contradict application.
• Prevents parties from altering clear written intentions.
• Ensures certainty and finality of documents.

Conclusion
​Section 97 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 strictly excludes evidence where the language of a document is plain and correctly applies to existing facts. The provision upholds the rule that when words and facts clearly correspond, the document must be enforced as written, without allowing extrinsic evidence to alter its meaning.