VoxJuris
Home › Acts › BSA › Chapter VI › Section 100

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 · Chapter VI: Of the Exclusion of Oral Evidence by Documentary Evidence

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

Earlier law: Evidence Act section 97 (Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies)

In plain words

When the language applies partly to one set of existing facts and partly to another, but fully to neither, evidence can be given to show which was intended.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Official text

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.

Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.

Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 25 August 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 100

No Supreme Court judgment in our database cites this section yet.