Question

S.93 of the Indian Evidence Act treats the patent ambiguity as

• A. Curable
• B. Incurable
• C. Proper
• D. None of the above

Hint:

Use this mnemonic: \textbf{P}atent = \textbf{P}lainly visible = Incurable. \textbf{L}atent = \textbf{L}urking/Hidden = Curable.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question concerns how the Indian Evidence Act deals with 'patent ambiguity' in documents. It's important to distinguish between patent and latent ambiguities.
- Patent Ambiguity: An ambiguity that is apparent on the face of the document. The language itself is unclear or defective. (Example: "A agrees to sell to B 'a hundred tons of oil'." It's unclear what kind of oil).
- Latent Ambiguity: An ambiguity that is not apparent on the face but arises when extrinsic facts are applied. The language seems clear but becomes ambiguous in context. (Example: "A agrees to sell his house in Kolkata to B." A owns two houses in Kolkata).
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Section 93 of the Indian Evidence Act is titled "Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend ambiguous document." It states that when the language used in a document is, on its face, ambiguous or defective, evidence may not be given of facts which would show its meaning or supply its defects.
The rationale is that the parties failed to express their intentions clearly in writing, and allowing oral evidence to 'cure' this defect would defeat the purpose of having a written document. The law holds the parties responsible for their unclear language. Therefore, a patent ambiguity is considered incurable.
In contrast, latent ambiguities (dealt with in Sections 95, 96, and 97) can be cured by adducing extrinsic evidence.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Section 93 explicitly bars the admission of evidence to cure a patent ambiguity, thus treating it as incurable. Therefore, option (B) is correct.