Lawgist81Extrinsic evidence inadmissible in case of patent ambiguity or deficiency
Where there is an ambiguity or deficiency on the face of a will, no extrinsic evidence as to the intentions of the testator shall be admitted.
Illustrations
(i) A man has an aunt, Caroline, and a cousin, Mary, and has no aunt of the name of Mary. By his Will he bequeaths 1,000 rupees to "my aunt, Caroline" and 1,000 rupees to "my cousin, Mary" and afterwards bequeaths 2,000 rupees to "my before-mentioned aunt, Mary". There is no person to whom the description given in the Will can apply, and evidence is not admissible to show who was meant by "my before-mentioned aunt, Mary". The bequest is, therefore, void for uncertainty under section 89.
(ii) A bequeaths 1,000 rupees to............leaving a blank for the name of the legatee. Evidence is not admissible to show what name the testator intended to insert.
(iii) A bequeaths to B .......................rupees, or "my estate of........................" Evidence is not admissible to show what sum or what estate the testator intended to insert.
Download our fully-offline, High speed android app.- Click here
- 74 Wording of wills
- 75 Inquiries to determine questions as to object or subject of will
- 76 Misnomer or misdescription of object
- 77 When words may be supplied
- 78 Rejection of erroneous particulars in description of subject
- 79 When part of description may not be rejected as erroneous
- 80 Extrinsic evidence admissible in cases of patent ambiguity
- 81 Extrinsic evidence inadmissible in case of patent ambiguity or deficiency
- 82 Meaning or clause to be collected from entire Will
- 83 When words may be understood in restricted sense, and when in sense wider than usual
- 84 Which of two possible constructions preferred
- 85 No part rejected, if it can be reasonably construed
- 86 Interpretation of words repeated in different parts of will
- 87 Testator’s intention to be effectuated as far as possible
- 88 The last of two inconsistent clauses prevails
- 89 Will or bequest void for uncertainty
- 90 Words describing subject refer to property answering description at testator’s death
- 91 Power of appointment executed by general bequest
- 92 Implied gift to objects of power in default of appointment
- 93 Bequest to “heirs,” etc., of particular person without qualifying terms
- 94 Bequest to “representatives”, etc., of particular person
- 95 Bequest without words of limitation
- 96 Bequest in alternative
- 97 Effect of words describing a class added to bequest to person
- 98 Bequest to class of persons under general description only
- 99 Construction of terms
- 100 Words expressing relationship denote only legitimate relatives or failing such relatives reputed legitimate
- 101 Rules of construction where will purports to make two bequests to same person
- 102 Constitution of residuary legatee
- 103 Property to which residuary legatee entitled
- 104 Time of vesting legacy in general terms
- 105 In what case legacy lapses
- 106 Legacy does not lapse if one of two joint legatees die before testator
- 107 Effect of words showing testator’s intention to give distinct shares
- 108 When lapsed share goes as undisposed of
- 109 When bequest to testator’s child or lineal descendant does not lapse on his death in testator’s lifetime
- 110 Bequest to A for benefit of B does not lapse by A’s death
- 111 Survivorship in case of bequest to described class
