Section 100 BSA: Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 100 BSA at a Glance

Section 100 BSA deals with evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies. It replaced Section 97 IEA on 1 July 2024.

Was IEA

Section 97 →

Section 100 BSA Bare Act Text

100. Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies

When the language used applies partly to one set of existing facts, and partly to another set of existing facts, but the whole of it does not apply correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply.

Illustration

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

Source: Section 100, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 100 BSA in Simple Words

Section 100 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lets a party give evidence to clarify a partly mismatched description. Effective from 1 July 2024, it covers language that partly fits two sets of existing facts yet fits neither completely.

Sometimes a person agrees to sell land identified by both its location and the person occupying it. The seller may own land at that location with a different occupant, and other land with that occupant elsewhere. Each part of the description matches one property, while the complete wording matches neither property accurately.

When that happens, Section 100 BSA permits evidence of facts to be given in court. This evidence can show which of the two sets of existing facts the wording was meant to cover.

When Section 100 BSA Applies

  • Language is used that applies in part to one set of existing facts.
  • The same language also applies in part to another set of existing facts.
  • The entire wording does not apply accurately to either set of facts.
  • A party can give evidence showing which of the two sets of facts the wording was meant to cover.

Example of Section 100 BSA

In 2025, Priya agrees in writing to transfer to Farhan a mango orchard in Nagpur. Priya owns an orchard in Nagpur that grows only oranges. The landowner also owns a mango orchard located in Surat. Thus, the description matches each orchard only in part and fits neither property in full. Under Section 100 BSA, either party can give evidence in court to show which orchard was meant to be transferred.

Section 100 BSA in the IEA (Previous Law)

Section 100 BSA replaces Section 97 IEA from the old criminal code.

Section 97 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 became Section 100 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 on 1 July 2024 without any change in wording.

FAQs on Section 100 BSA

What is Section 100 BSA?▼

Section 100 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is the rule that applies when language partly fits two sets of existing facts but does not fit either set completely. It allows evidence to be given to show which of the two sets of facts the language was meant to cover.

Can evidence be given under Section 100 BSA when a sale agreement partly fits two different lands?▼

Yes. If a seller owns land at a named place without the named occupant, and other land with the named occupant at a different place, neither land fits the whole description. Section 100 BSA allows evidence of facts showing which land the seller meant to sell.

What is Section 100 BSA in IEA?▼

Section 97 IEA. Before 1 July 2024, the same rule stood in Section 97 IEA without any difference in wording.

Have questions about Section 100 BSA?

Ask NyayGuru for a plain language explanation, or how it applies to your situation.

Ask NyayGuru →

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.

Sources: Bare Act Text, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ·