Recital, is evidence as against the parties to the instrument and those claiming under them and in an action on the instrument itself, the recitals operate as an estoppel, though would not be so on a collateral matter, Ram Charan Das v. Girja Nandini Devi, AIR 1966 SC 323: (1965) 1 SCWR 837: (1966) 1 SCJ 61.
The rehearsal or making mention in a deed or writing of something which has been done before, 1 Lilly Abr. 416. As to how far the recitals govern the construction of a deed the rule is as follows:-
If the recitals are clear and the operative part is ambiguous, the recitals govern the construction. If the recitals are ambiguous, and the operative part is clear, the operative part must prevail. If both the recitals and the operative part are clear, but they are inconsistent with each other, the operative part is to be preferred [Ex parte Dawes, (1886) 17 QBD 286, per Lord Esher, M.R.]. As between the parties to a deed and for its purposes only and subject to the intention of the parties upon construction, a recital of a particular fact but not a general recital amounts to an estoppel against the party making it. Whether both parties are bound is a question of intention to be ascertained in the same way. See Notes to the Duchess of Kingston's case, Sm. L. C. See DEED.
The expression 'recitals' means, according to the Dictionary of English Law by Jowitt: 'statements in a deed, agreement or other formal instrument, introduced to explain or lead up to the operative part of the instrument.' Recitals are generally divided into narrative recitals which set forth the facts on which the instrument is based and introductory recitals which explain the motive for the operative part. Where the recitals are clear and the operative part is ambiguous the recitals govern the construction. Normally a recital is evidence as against the parties to the instrument and those claiming under them and in an action on the instrument itself the recitals operate as an estoppel, though that would not be so on a collateral matter, Ram Charan v. Girja Nandini, AIR 1966 SC 323 (327): (1965) 3 SCR 541.