Evidence Act 1950 · Updated to 1 Nov 2017 · Chapter VI · Exclusion of Oral by Documentary Evidence
95. Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts
Feedback & supportWhen 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.
document
“document” means any matter expressed, described, or howsoever represented, upon any substance, material, thing or article, including any matter embodied in a disc, tape, film, sound-track or other device whatsoever, by means of— (a) letters, figures, marks, symbols, signals, signs, or other forms of expression, description, or representation whatsoever; (b) any visual recording (whether of still or moving images); (c) any sound recording, or any electronic, magnetic, mechanical or other recording whatsoever and howsoever made, or any sounds, electronic impulses, or other data whatsoever; (d) a recording, or transmission, over a distance of any matter by any, or any combination, of the means mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c), or by more than one of the means mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), intended to be used or which may be used for the purpose of expressing, describing, or howsoever representing, that matter; A writing is a document. Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents. A map, plan, graph or sketch is a document. Evidence 15 An inscription on wood, metal, stone or any other substance, material or thing is a document. A drawing, painting, picture or caricature is a document. A photograph or a negative is a document. A tape recording of a telephonic communication, including a recording of such communication transmitted over distance, is a document. A photographic or other visual recording, including a recording of a photographic or other visual transmission over a distance, is a document. A matter recorded, stored, processed, retrieved or produced by a computer is a document;
A conveys to B by memorandum of transfer “my plantation in Penang.”
A had no plantation in Penang, but it appears that he had a plantation in
Seberang Perai of which B had been in possession since the execution of the memorandum.
These facts may be proved to show that the memorandum related to the plantation in Seberang Perai.