Section 97 IEA: Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 97 IEA at a Glance

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

Now BSA

Section 100 →

Section 97 IEA Bare Act Text

97. 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 97, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 97 IEA in Simple Words

Section 97 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lets a party give evidence to clarify a partly mismatched description. It applies when the language used partly fits two sets of existing facts, yet matches neither set completely.

For example, a person may agree to sell land described by both its place and its occupant. The seller may own land at that place with a different occupant, and other land with that occupant elsewhere. Here, the wording applies in part to each property, while the whole description applies accurately to neither property.

In such a case, Section 97 IEA allows evidence of facts to be given in court. This evidence can show which of the two sets of existing facts the language was meant to cover.

When Section 97 IEA Applies

  • Language is used that applies in part to one set of existing facts.
  • The same language also applies in part to a second set of existing facts.
  • The full wording does not apply accurately to either set of facts on its own.
  • A party may give evidence showing which of the two sets of facts the language was meant to cover.

Example of Section 97 IEA

In 2022, Ramesh signs a contract with Anita to sell a red warehouse in Pune. At the time, Ramesh owns a warehouse in Jaipur that is painted red. The seller also owns a warehouse in Pune, but that building is painted blue. Because the description matches each building only in part and fits neither one in full, Section 97 IEA lets the parties give evidence to show which warehouse was meant to be sold.

Section 97 IEA in the BSA

Section 97 IEA is now covered under Section 100 BSA.

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.

View detailed comparison (IEA 97 vs BSA 100) →

FAQs on Section 97 IEA

What is Section 97 IEA?▼

Section 97 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a rule for language that partly fits two different sets of existing facts but matches neither set completely. It allows evidence to be given to show which of the two sets of facts the language was meant to cover.

Can a party give evidence under Section 97 IEA when a description fits two properties only in part?▼

Yes. When the wording used applies partly to one property and partly to another, and the full description matches neither property accurately, evidence of facts may be given. That evidence can show which property the seller meant to sell.

What is Section 97 IEA in BSA?▼

Section 100 BSA. Section 97 IEA became Section 100 BSA on 1 July 2024 without any change in wording.

Have questions about Section 97 IEA?

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, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ·