ADMISSIONS

SECTION 17: ADMISSION DEFINE

Section 17 defines admissions as , “An admission is a statement which:
i. Suggests an inference to a fact in issue or relevant fact
ii. Is oral or documentary or contained in electronic form
iii. Is made by any person under certain circumstances.”
An admission is voluntary acknowledgement about existence of certain facts.
REASONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF ADMISSIONS:
An admission is a relevant evidence. Admissions are admitted because the conduct of a party to a proceeding
in respect of the matter in dispute, which is clearly inconsistent with the truth of his contention, is a fact
relevant to the issue.
1. Admission as a waiver of proof: if a part admits a fact it dispenses with the necessity of proving that
fact against him. It operates as a waiver of proof. It cannot be an exclusive reason for relevancy of an
admission as they constitute a weak evidence and court may reject it wholly or in part.
2. Admission as statement against interest: it being statement against the interest of the maker should be
supposed to be true as it highly impossible that a person will voluntarily makes a false statement
against his own interest.
3. Admissions as evidence of contradictory statements: there is a contradiction between the party’s
statement and his case. However, a party can prove all his opponent’s statements about the facts of
the case and it is not necessary that they should be inconsistent with his case.
4. Admission as evidence of truth: whatever statements a party makes about the fact of the case, whether
the be or against his interest should be relevant as representation or reflecting the truth against him.
FORMS OF ADMISSION
Every written or oral statement by a party about the facts of the case is an admissions. Admisssions are
broadly classified into two categories:
a) Judicial or Formal admissions: judicial admissions are made by a party to the proceedings of the case
prior to the trial. These are fully binding upon the party who makes them. They can be made the
foundation of rights of the parties.
b) Extra Judicial or informal admissions: these are those which donot appear on the record of the case,
and may occur in the ordinary course of life, or in ordinary of business or in casual conversation. They
are binding on the party only partially except in cases where they operate as estoppel.
ADMISSION – EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE
Admissions constitute an exception to hearsay rule.
Illustration: A sues B on a loan, which B denies and B makes a statement to C, a third person that he had taken
the loan. B’s statement is admission and C may give evidence though he was not present at the time of loan.
PERSONS WHOSE ADMISSION ARE RELEVANT
Sec 18, 19, 20 makes the statements of the following persons relevant:

i. Parties to the proceedings (s. 18)

ii. Agents authorised by the parties (s. 18)
iii. Persons occupying representative character (s. 18)
iv. Persons having pecuniary interest(s. 18 (1)
v. Persons from whom parties derived interest(s. 18 (2))
vi. Persons whose position is in issue or relevant to the issue (s. 19)
vii. Persons expressly referred to by the parties in a particular suit (s. 20)

1. Admission by parties to proceedings: Parties include not only those who appear on record but also the
persons who are interested in the subject matter of the suit. Hence they are considered as real parties.
2. Depending upon the circumstances, the statements made by the parties interested and persons from
whom they derive interest are admissible if they are made during the continuance of the interest of
the person making the statements.
3. It is also observed that statements made by agents are admissible against the principal according to
the law of agency because the agent has express or implied authority to make certain statements. In
short, the agency must be proved before the admissions of the agent (Kedar Nath v. State of WB)
4. When a party sues or is sued in a representative capacity, for example, as a trustee, executor or the
like, the representative is different from the ordinary capacity and only admissions made in the former
capacity shall be admissible. Further, such statements are not admissible in a suit against him in his
latter capacity.
5. Section 18 (1) speaks about the admissions made by the persons who are jointly interested in the suit.
Such joint interest needs to be proved independently from the admissions made. Such joint interest
may be of proprietary or pecuniary nature. Only when such case of joint interest which is prima facie is
proved will the statement of admissions be relevant. For example, certain good were consigned for
carriage, thus both the consignor and consignee have an interest in the goods and therefore a joint
interest.
6. Section 18 (2) speaks about the admissions for the person from whom the interest is derived but the
statements made should be made to be in continuance of the same transaction.

Section 19 takes into consideration the statements made by persons whose position or liability is necessary to
prove as against any party to the suit as admission. For example, A undertakes to collect rents for B. B sues A
for not collecting rent from C. Under these circumstances, a statement by C stating that he owed B rent is an
admission and may be relevant fact that can be used against A.

Section 20 is another exception to the general rule. When a party refers to a third person for some
information to have some opinion on the matter in dispute, the statements by such 3rd person are receivable
as admissions against the person referring. Thus depending upon the facts and circumstances, the person
referred in the suit and admissions recorded are relevant under this section.
Section 23 deals with admissions in civil cases. For the purpose of compromise, negotiations may take place
out of the court between the parties. During the process of negotiation, parties make many statements. If
such statements are allowed to be proved in the court, then it will be impossible for parties to negotiate and
reach a compromise. Further, these statements will not be admissible as evidence.
Essential conditions for protection under S. 23 to be made applicable are:
i. There must be a civil dispute in question
ii. Negotiations should have taken place between the parties
iii. Negotiation should have taken place out of the court
iv. There must be an express condition from which the court can infer that the parties had entered
into negotiations.
An admission should be used as a whole and not in part. An admission made by a person cannot be split up
and part of it may not be used against him. If there is some other evidence which disproves a part of the
admission, the other part must be relied upon.
Under the explanation under S. 23, the legal advisor of the party will not be prevented from giving evidence of
any communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose or any fact showing that crime or fraud has
been committed since his employment.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF ADMISSION

Admission does not constitute a conclusive proof of the facts admitted. (section 31) . it is a prima facie proof.
i. The SC observed in the case of Banarai Das v. Kashi Ram, that admissions are a very weak kind
of evidence and the court may reject them if they are untrue.
ii. Further in the case Rakesh Wadhwar v. J.I. corporation, the SC held that admissions are not
conclusive proof of the matter admitted unless they operate as estoppels. Therefore the value
of evidence depends on the circumstances under which they are made and also by whom it is
made.
iii. If one party in a suit proves that the other party has admitted his case then the work of the
court becomes easier. But in a certain case, admissions may be used in discrediting the parties’
statements. Thus the evidentiary value of admissions is based on the circumstances in which
they are made.

CONCLUSION
The admissions at best only suggest inferences. The court must examine the statement inside out and should
see whether statement is clear, unequivocal and comprehensive.