Of Relevancy of

Facts: Part II

ADMISSIONS
under IEA, 1872
Lecture 5_Unit 1

Ms. Jyoti Singh

Assistant Professor,
St. Joseph’s College of Law .
 Section 17: Admission Defined

WHAT IS IT? : An admission is a statement,

IN WHAT FORM? : oral or documentary or contained in electronic form,

WHAT DOES IT DO? : which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or
relevant fact, and

BY WHOM AND IN WHAT MANNER? : which is made by any of the

persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.
WHAT IS ADMISSION?
• An admission is a statement, oral or documentary made by a party to a
proceeding, or his representative connected with the subject-matter of
the suit or proceeding or facts relevant thereto.
• The definition u/s 17 is incomplete as it does not mention the
persons by whom it can be made nor the circumstances.
• The names and circumstances are found under sec 18-30.

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.
PRINCIPLES OF ADMISSION: Basant Singh vs Janki
Singh And Ors, 1967 AIR 341, 1967 SCR (1) 1

• Any kind of statement in the plaint is admissible in evidence.

• No obligation on the Court to accept all the statements as correct and the
court may accept some of the statements as relevant and reject the rest.
• There is no distinction between an admission made by a party in a pleading
and other admissions.
• Admissions are always examined as a whole, hence they cannot be divided
into parts.
• Any admission cannot be regarded as conclusive, and it is open to both
parties to show whether it’s true or not.
MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,
SJCL.
• Admissibility of a plea of guilt can be determined only if the plea is
recorded by the accused in his own words.
• An admission to have a substantive evidence effect should be
voluntary in nature.
• Admissions do not carry a conclusive value; it is only limited to being
prima facie proof.
• Admissions that are clear in the words of the accused are considered as
good evidence of the facts submitted.

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.
ALL CONFESSIONS ARE ADMISSIONS BUT
ALL ADMISSIONS ARE NOT CONFESSIONS

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.
Distinction between Admissions and
Confession:
+The term "admission" is defined in Section 17, but confession has not
been defined under the Act.
+In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (Parliament Attack
case), it was observed that admission is a statement, oral or
documentary which enables the court to draw inference as to any
fact in issue or relevant fact.
+A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged
with a crime, standing or suggesting the inference that he committed
the crime.
MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,
SJCL.
Effect of Admissions

Admissions are not conclusive proof of matters admitted but they may operate
as estoppel, i.e, the person cannot be permitted to deny it. (Section 31)

A party's admission must be presumed to be true until contrary is shown.

Admission founded on hearsay or consisting of merely of declarant's opinion or

belief are receivable in evidence but their evidentiary value is very low.

As compared to confession, admission has a lower weightage.

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.
 Section 18. Admission –– by party to
proceeding or his agent; by suitor in
representative character; by party
interested in subject-matter; by person from
whom interest derived
SECTION 18 PRIMARILY DEALS WITH "WHO CAN MAKE AN ADMISSION?"

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.
• BY PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS: The statements made by the parties
to a proceeding as against himself is considered as a relevant admission.
• ADMISSION BY THE AGENT: The statements made by an agent in a
suit would be admissible as against the person he is representing. The
statements made by an agent are, however, binding only when they are
made during the continuance of his agency. So, when the agent’s right to
interference has come to an end any statement made by him after that will
not have any effect on the principal.
• STATEMENTS MADE IN REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER: When
a person such as trustees, administers, executors etc., sue or are sued in a
representative character, any statement made by them will only be
admissible if made in their representative character. Any declarations made
by them in their personal capacity will not be taken as an admission.
MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,
SJCL.
• PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT-MATTER: In any such
suit where several persons are interested jointly in the subject-matter of the
suit, then any admission made by anyone of the parties will be taken as an
admission against himself as well as the other parties jointly interested in
the subject matter. It does not matter whether the persons jointly interested
in the subject-matter are suing or being sued jointly or separately. However,
for this rule to apply there has to be prima facie foundation showing that
joint interest exists between the parties suing or being sued.
• PERSONS FROM WHOM THE PARTIES DERIVE INTEREST: Any
statement made by the predecessor-in-title from who the party to the suit
derives his title will be admissible. But this will only be held as an
admission if the predecessor-in-title made the declaration while still holding
the title and not after the title has been transferred. The statement made
by the former owner will not be considered as an admission as against the
parties if it was made title has been passed.
MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,
SJCL.
Section 19- Admission by persons whose
position must be proved as against party to
suit
• As general rule statements made by a third party to a suit are not
considered as admissions, but Section 19 is an exception to this rule.
• Section 19 refers to the statements made by a third party as against
himself when it affects his position or liability and when such liability
or position is relevant to be proved as against the party to the suit.
• The statements made by the third party, in this case, would only be
relevant if the liability or position of that third party still exists at the
time of the suit.

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.
Illustration
A undertakes to collect rents for B.

B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B.

A denies that rent was due from C to B.

A statement by C that he owed B rent is an admission, and is a

relevant fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.
MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,
SJCL.
Section 20. Admissions by persons
expressly referred to by party to suit.
• Statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly
referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are
admissions.
• Illustration
The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is sound.
A says to B -- "Go and ask C, C knows all about it." C's statement is
an admission.

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.
Section 21: Proof of admissions against
persons making them, and by or on their
behalf:
+ Admission can be self- serving or self-harming.
+ Usually, self-harming admission is relevant and self- serving admission is of no value.
+ For instance, A has a property dispute with B. Both A and B claim that the property
belong to them. One month before the dispute, A admits to C that the property belongs to
be B. This is a self-harming admission and is admissible in court.
+ If A had admitted that the property belongs to him, it would be of no value as he is
making the same claim before the court.
+ However, a self-serving admission can be made admissible if it falls under the categories
mentioned under section 21 (which provides exceptions to the general rule).

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.
(1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it,
when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it
would be relevant as between third persons under section 32.
(2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it,
when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or
body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of
mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its
falsehood improbable.
(3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it
is relevant otherwise than as an admission.

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.
Section 22. When oral admissions as to
contents of documents are relevant.
+According to Section 22, when there is a document then nobody can
be allowed to prove the content of that document. However, there are
some exceptions to this rule:-
+In the case the party is entitled to give secondary evidence of the
contents of the documents then he can rely on oral Admission.
+In the case where the original document is lost or if it is in the
possession of the opposition party, then also the party may make oral
Admission.

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.
Section 22A. When oral admission as to contents
of electronic records are relevant

Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant,

unless the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in
question.

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.
Section 23. Admissions in civil cases, when
relevant.
In civil cases no admission is relevant, if:
+ it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be
given, or
+ under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed
together that evidence of it should not be given.

Explanation. -- Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any

barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil from giving evidence of any matter of
which he may be compelled to give evidence under section 126.
MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,
SJCL.
MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,
SJCL.
CASE LAWS:
• Bharat Singh And Anr Vs Bhagirathi: Admissions are the Substantive Evidence
The Supreme Court here observed that Admissions are substantive evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act they are not the conclusive proof of the admitted matter. As it does not matter that
whether the party is making witness to appear in the witness box or that party was confronted with
those statements that they had made. It was under Section 17 and 21 of the Act.
• Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya Vs The State of Bombay: Admissions Can be Used Against the Party
who Made The Statement
The Court held that the statements made by the parties could be used as admissions against them
even if they might not have communicated to any other person. For example, the bank statements in
the account book of a person that tells that he was in debt can be used as admissions against him even
though these were never communicated by the person.

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.
CASE LAWS:
• Nathoo Lal Vs Durga Prasad: Party Must be True unless Contrary is Shown
The Court here held that as any of the admissions made by the parties in the suits are a very
important piece of evidence and the persons who are related to the subject-matter of the case and are
the real parties in interest but are not on record. On the other hand, if a person is a party in the suit but
does not have any interest in the subject matter of the case then his statement would not be an
admission. Hence it was observed that what is admitted by a party to be true should be presumed to
be true unless the contrary is shown.
• K.M. Singh Vs Secretary, Association of Indian Universities and Others: Plaintiff Could Not
be Bound by Decision Based on Special Oath
It was held by the Court that as per Section 20 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the oath as per
the plaintiff’s statement was administered and hence no doubt was on the manner that the two
persons who took the oath according to Section 20. The two persons here were the plaintiff’s
nominee by the virtue of Section 20 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the orders of the court
were unassailable, and the High Court dismissed the petition.
MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,
SJCL.
CASE LAWS:
• Tara Singh Vs The State: Witness could Be Confronted with the
Previous Statements
The Court held that the evidence in the Court cannot be used in the
Sessions Court unless the witness is confronted with the previous
statement. This is mentioned in section 145of the Indian Evidence Act.
Witness is cross examined with the previous statements if this satisfies
the prosecution then nothing more is required to do so but if it does not
then the examination could lead forward. Then only the matter could be
brought as substantive evidence under Section 288.

MS. JYOTI SINGH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW,

SJCL.