INTRODUCTION

When the language of the document is so uncertain and effective that no meaning can be granted to
the document then it is called as Patent Ambiguity. When the language of a document is certain and
meaningful but the document makes no relevance in the present circumstance then it is latent
ambiguity.

Patent ambiguity refers to the ambiguity or an uncertain meaning on the face of the
document/agreement/contract. In such ambiguity, the testator’s intention on the face remains
unclear. It is also known as intrinsic ambiguity.

Latent ambiguity refers to the ambiguity that, on the face, appears to be certain and
meaningful, but on execution, it does not make any relevance to the existing facts or the present
circumstances. Or simply, it is not apparent on the face of the record.

When interpreting a will, there may be cases where certain words or phrases used in the will are
unclear or open to more than one interpretation. Such ambiguities may be classified as latent or
patent, and courts have developed certain cardinal rules for dealing with each type of ambiguity.

A patent ambiguity is one that is apparent on the face of the will, such as a spelling error or an
incorrect name. A latent ambiguity, on the other hand, is one that arises when the language of the
will is applied to the facts of the case. For example, if the testator leaves his property to "my brother
John," but has two brothers named John, a latent ambiguity arises.

In order to resolve these ambiguities, the Indian Succession Act has laid down certain cardinal rules.
These rules provide guidance to the courts on how to interpret the will in such cases. The cardinal
rules relating to latent and patent ambiguity are crucial for understanding the approach of the courts
when resolving ambiguities in wills.

SECTIONS

The Indian Succession Act does not use the terms "latent ambiguity" and "patent ambiguity"
explicitly. However, the Act deals with ambiguities in wills and provides guidance on how they should
be resolved. The relevant sections of the Indian Succession Act that deal with ambiguities in wills are
as follows:

1. Section 95: This section deals with the construction of wills and lays down the basic rule that a will
must be construed according to the intention of the testator.

2. Section 96: This section provides that when the language of a will is clear, it must be given effect
to, irrespective of the consequences.
3. Section 97: This section deals with cases where there is an ambiguity in the language used in the
will. It provides that extrinsic evidence, such as the surrounding circumstances and the state of affairs
at the time the will was made, may be admitted to determine the true intention of the testator.

4. Section 105: This section deals with cases where a bequest or legacy is made to a person by a
description that applies to more than one person. It provides that the property must be divided
equally among the persons who answer the description.

5. Section 106: This section deals with cases where a bequest or legacy is made to a person who is
not named or described in the will. It provides that the bequest or legacy is void unless the person
can be identified by the extrinsic evidence.

These sections provide the framework for resolving ambiguities in wills under the Indian Succession
Act. While they do not explicitly use the terms "latent ambiguity" and "patent ambiguity," they
provide guidance on how to interpret the language used in the will and determine the true intention
of the testator.

CARDINAL RULES

The Indian Succession Act lays down certain cardinal rules regarding latent and patent ambiguities in
wills. These rules are as follows:

1. Patent ambiguity: A patent ambiguity is an ambiguity that is apparent on the face of the will. The
cardinal rule relating to patent ambiguity is that the court should give effect to the plain and
grammatical meaning of the words used in the will, irrespective of the intention of the testator. In
other words, the court will not go beyond the words used in the will to discover the intention of the
testator.

2. Latent ambiguity: A latent ambiguity is an ambiguity that is not apparent on the face of the will
but arises when the will is applied to the facts of the case. The cardinal rule relating to latent
ambiguity is that extrinsic evidence, such as evidence of the surrounding circumstances, may be
admitted to resolve the ambiguity and determine the intention of the testator.

3. Principle of general intention: The principle of general intention states that where there is an
ambiguity in a will, the court should try to give effect to the general intention of the testator. The
general intention is the overall purpose or object of the testator in making the will.
4. Principle of specific intention: The principle of specific intention states that where there is a
conflict between a general intention and a specific intention, the specific intention should prevail
over the general intention. The specific intention is the intention of the testator with respect to a
particular bequest or legacy.

It is important to note that these cardinal rules are not absolute and may be subject to exceptions in
certain circumstances. However, they provide a useful framework for understanding the approach of
the courts in resolving ambiguities in wills under the Indian Succession Act.

CASE LAWS

Here are some important case laws that have dealt with the issues of latent and patent ambiguities
under the Indian Succession Act:

1. Munshi Ram v. Banarsi Lal (1925): This case deals with the issue of latent ambiguity. The testator
left a bequest to "my sister's son" but had two sisters who had sons. The court held that there was a
latent ambiguity, which could be resolved by looking at the extrinsic evidence. The court allowed the
evidence of the testator's intention to be admitted, and it was found that the bequest was meant for
the son of one of the sisters.

2. Nirmalendu Basu v. Pranab Kumar Basu (1976): This case deals with the issue of patent ambiguity.
The testator left a bequest to "my cousin Pranab Kumar Basu" but had two cousins with the same
name. The court held that there was a patent ambiguity, which could be resolved by applying the
rule of division under Section 105 of the Indian Succession Act. The property was divided equally
between the two cousins who answered the description.

3. Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. Bawa Amrit Pal Singh (1995): This case deals with the issue of latent
ambiguity. The testator left a bequest to "my eldest son" but had two sons who were born on the
same day. The court held that there was a latent ambiguity, which could be resolved by looking at the
extrinsic evidence. The court allowed the evidence of the testator's intention to be admitted, and it
was found that the bequest was meant for the son who was born first.

These cases illustrate the approach of the courts when dealing with ambiguities in wills under the
Indian Succession Act. While each case is decided on its own facts, the courts have consistently
applied the principles laid down in the Act to resolve ambiguities and give effect to the true intention
of the testator.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the cardinal rules relating to latent and patent ambiguity under the Indian Succession
Act provide guidance on how to interpret the language used in a will and determine the true
intention of the testator. While the Act does not use the terms "latent ambiguity" and "patent
ambiguity" explicitly, it provides provisions such as Sections 95, 96, 97, 105, and 106 that help
resolve ambiguities in wills. The courts have applied these provisions in various cases and have
consistently held that the true intention of the testator should be given effect to, even if it means
departing from the literal interpretation of the words used in the will. The principles of construction
of wills under the Indian Succession Act aim to ensure fairness and justice to all concerned parties
and uphold the sanctity of the will.

REFERENCES

- Universal’s Bare Act