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 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.
Image Source: language-diversity.eu
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Illustration:
A agrees to sell to В “my land at X in the occupation of YA 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.
Comments:
Section 97 is a third example of the latent ambiguity and an extended version of Section 95. It is also based on the principle that “a false description does not vitiate a document.” According to the section when the language of deed applies partly to one set of facts and partly to another and that the whole of it does not apply to any one, the extrinsic evidence is admissible. For example, A left his property to his children. A has no legitimate children, but has illegitimate children. Evidence may be given of facts that A intended to give his property to illegitimate children.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Where there is dispute as between boundaries and area it is permissible to have recourse to extrinsic evidence to gather real intention.