624 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
This question is dealt with in Sections 93-100.
In dealing with documentary Evidence disputes may arise on three counts:
(i) Disputes regarding applicability or non-applicability of die language of the document to existing facts
(ii) Disputes regarding the meaning of the documents where the language used is ambiguous or defective.
(iii) Disputes regarding the meaning of the words used in the document.
- Under 1 there are three possible cases of disputes.
(1) Where language applies accurately to facts and the contention is that it was not meant to apply—Evidence may not be given in support of the contention to show that it was not meant to apply to the existing facts to winch they do apply—Sec. 94
(2) Where language applies to one of the existing facts but not to all of them—and the contention is that it applies to one specified fact—Evidence may be given in support of the contention to show to which particular fact it was intended to apply.—Sec. 95.
(3) Where language applies partly to one set of facts and partly to another set of facts and whole does not apply correctly to either and the contention is that it applies to one set and not to the other—Evidence may be given in support of the contention to show to which of the two it was meant to apply—Sec. 97.
- Under the second Head of Disputes there are two possible cases :
(i) Where language is ambiguous or defective and the contention is that the parties meant a particular thing— Evidence may not be given in support of the contention to show its meaning or to supply its defects—Sec. 93.
(ii) Where the language is plain in itself but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts and the contention is that it was meant to indicate a particular thing— Evidence may be given in support of the contention to show what was meant—Sec 95.