Question

Evidences to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts is called as

• A. Patent ambiguity
• B. Latent ambiguity
• C. Both of them
• D. None of the above

Hint:

A simple way to remember the difference: - \textbf{Patent} = Obvious, on the face. The document looks confusing. (Evidence NOT allowed). - \textbf{Latent} = Hidden. The document looks fine, but the facts make it confusing. (Evidence IS allowed).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with ambiguity in documents in Sections 93 to 98. It distinguishes between two types of ambiguity: patent and latent.
- Patent Ambiguity (Ambiguitas patens): An ambiguity that is apparent on the face of the document. The language of the document itself is defective or unintelligible. For example, a will that leaves "some money to B" is patently ambiguous. Section 93 states that evidence cannot be given to explain or remove a patent ambiguity.
- Latent Ambiguity (Ambiguitas latens): An ambiguity that is not apparent on the face of the document, but arises when the language, which is clear in itself, is applied to the external facts. The document seems perfectly clear until an attempt is made to apply it to the facts, and then an ambiguity is revealed.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The question describes a situation where a document becomes "unmeaning in reference to existing facts". This perfectly matches the definition of a latent ambiguity.
Section 96 of the Evidence Act illustrates this: "When the language used in a document is plain in itself, but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense."
Example: A agrees to sell to B "my house in Calcutta". A has no house in Calcutta, but he has a house in Howrah, of which B has been in possession since the execution of the deed. These facts show that the deed was unmeaning in reference to the fact of A having no house in Calcutta. Evidence can be given to show that the intended property was the house in Howrah.
Therefore, this is a case of latent ambiguity.