Admission, as defined under section 17 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

“An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form,

which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is
made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned.”

The definition states that evidence can either be oral, documentary or be contained in
electronic form (inserted by Information Technology Act, 2000). Its relevancy is
depended on whether if, it satisfies the conditions mentioned in sections 18 to 23 of
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Surprisingly, in common parlance, ‘confession’ is
used to refer to adverse statements made by a competent party but it comes under the
purview of admission. Admission is a broader term and includes confessional
statements. Confession is nowhere defined in the act but the conditions for its
relevancy are given in sections 24 to 30.

ADMISSIONS

As already defined above, admissions are statements that attach a liability, as inferred
from the facts in issue or relevant facts, to the party who made such statements; the
statement, denouncing any right, should be conclusive and clear, there should not be
any doubt or ambiguity. This was held by the Supreme Court in Chikham Koteswara
Rao v C Subbarao (AIR 1981 SC 1542). They are only prima facie proof and not
conclusive proof.

Admissions can be either formal or informal. The former also called judicial
admission is made during the proceedings, while the latter is made during the normal
course of life. Judicial admissions are admissible under Section 58 of the act and are
substantive. They are a waiver of proof, that is, no further proof is needed to prove
them unless the court asks the same. The Supreme Court in Nagindas Ramdas v
Dalpatram Ichharam (1974 1 SCC 242) explained the effect of it, stating that if
admissions are true and clear, they are the best proof of the facts admitted. Through
informal or casual admission, the act brings in every written or oral statement
regarding the facts of the case (by the party), under admission.
A person’s conduct may also be taken as an admission. In an Australian case, Mayo v
Mayo (1949 P 172), a woman registered the birth of her child but did not enter the
name of the father or his profession. The court said that either she did not know who
the father was or she was admitting that the child is illegitimate. In either case, there is
an admission of adultery and an admissible evidence of adultery.

Before any admission becomes relevant, it should meet certain conditions, which are
explained further down below.

Section 18, 19 & 20

These sections lay down the list of persons whose admission will be relevant. Section
18 lays down the rules for parties to the suit and sections19 & 20 lay down rules
regarding relevancy for third parties. They are:

 PARTIES TO THE SUIT All statements made by parties to the suit that
makes an inference as to a relevant fact or fact in issue is relevant. In case of
defendants, a defendant’s admission does not bind his co-defendants as, then,
the plaintiff would defeat the case of all defendants through the mouth of one.
In case of the plaintiff, since they all share some common interest, the
admission of one plaintiff is bound on co-plaintiffs (Kashmira Singh v State of
MP AIR 1952 SC 159).

 AGENTS OF PARTIES As the law of agency dictates, anything done by an

agent, in the normal course of business, is deemed to have been done by the
principal himself (qui facit per alium, facit per se). Hence, if an agent is
impliedly or expressly been asked to make an adverse statement, the same
shall be relevant. A lawyer does not come under this section.

 STATEMENTS IN REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER A person who

sues or is sued in a representative character. These refer to people such as
trustees, administrators, executors, etc. Nothing said in their personal capacity
is taken as admission but if said in the representative capacity, it counts as an
admission.
 STATEMENT OF THIRD PARTIES These include
 Persons having proprietary or pecuniary interest in subject matter, provided,
their statements are in the character of their interest.
 A predecessor-in-title, that is, from whom the parties have derived their
interest in the subject-matter of the suit. This is applicable only if the parties to
the suit continue holding their title. The previous owner of the title to the
property can make admissions regarding the property and not the parties or the
new owner.