ADMISSIONS

ADV. USHA ANDEWAR

Part II – Chapter II – Sections 15 to 21

According to Adhiniyam, admission refers to the voluntary acknowledgment of

the existence or truth of a specific fact. It encompasses statements, whether oral,
written, or contained in electronic form, that imply an inference about a fact in
issue or a relevant fact.

Section 15 defines the term “admission.” According to the definition an

admission :-

(i) is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form,

(ii) which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and
(iii) which is made by any person under the circumstances hereinafter
mentioned. Such circumstances as “hereinafter mentioned” have
been mentioned in Sections 16 to 21.

Admissibility of Admissions

An admission is a piece of relevant evidence. Admissions are admitted because

the conduct of a party to a proceeding, in respect of the matter in dispute,
whether by acts, speech or writing, which is inconsistent with the truth of his
contention, is a fact relevant to the issue. Several reasons have been suggested
for receiving admissions in evidence.

(i) Admissions a waiver of proof – If a party has admitted a fact, it

dispenses with the necessity of proving that fact against him. It
operates as a waiver of proof. However, admissions constitute a very
weak kind of evidence, and the court may reject an admission wholly

1|Page
 or in part or may require further proof. Waiver of proof, thus, cannot
be an exclusive reason for the relevancy of an admission.

(ii) Admissions as a statement against interest – An admission, being a

statement against the interest of the maker, should be supposed to be
true, for it is highly improbable that a person will voluntarily make a
false statement against his own interest. However, Sec. 17 does not
require that a statement should be a self-harming statement, the
definition also includes self-serving statements.

(iii) Admissions as evidence of contradictory statements – Another

reason that partly accounts for the relevancy of an admission is that
there is a contradiction between the party’s statement and his case.
This kind of contradiction discredits 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.

(iv) Admissions as evidence of truth – The most widely accepted reason

that accounts for the relevancy of admission is that whatever
statements a party makes about the fact of the case, whether they be
for or against his interest, should be relevant as a representation or
reflecting the truth against him. Whatever a party says in evidence
against himself what a party himself admits to be true may be
presumed to be so.

Types of Admissions under Evidence Act

Admissions are broadly classified into two categories :-

(a) judicial or formal admissions, and

(b) extra-judicial or informal admissions

2|Page
1. Judicial admissions or Formal admissions are made by a party to the
proceeding of the case prior to the trial. Such admissions, being made in
the case, are fully binding on the party who makes them. They constitute
a waiver of proof. They can be made the foundation of the rights of the
parties. In comparison, the evidentiary admissions which are receivable at
the trial as evidence, can be shown to be wrong.

These admissions occur when a party makes statements during the official
proceedings of a case, such as statements given to a magistrate. They are
recorded as part of the legal process and there is no need to prove the facts
admitted.

Section 53 of the Adhiniyam says that the facts which are judicially
admitted need not to be proved.

2. Informal or casual, i.e., extra-judicial admissions are those which do

not appear on the record of the case and may occur in the ordinary course
of life, in the course of business, or in casual conversation. The admission
may be in writing (letters, account books, etc.) or oral. Thus, every written
or oral statement by a party about the facts of the case is an admission.
However, unlike judicial admissions, they are binding on the party only
partially and not fully, except in cases where they operate as or have the
effect of estoppel.

Informal admissions are usually made in casual conversation in ignorance

of the possibility of it being used in future litigation. For example, with
friends, family, neighbour, and so on.

These admissions are of an informal nature and are not officially recorded
in the case documents. For instance, if a murder suspect, while receiving
medical treatment, informs the doctor about the cause of their injuries,
this informal statement is considered an admission.

3|Page
3. Admission by Conduct - This type of admission arises from a person’s
behavior or actions. For example, if an individual flees the scene during a
casual police interrogation, their conduct is viewed as an admission by
conduct.

Conditions For Admissibility of Admissions

1. Admission must relate to the subject matter.

2. Admission must always be in the nature of self-harming form/statement.
3. Admission must be made by persons and in the circumstances mentioned
under Section 16 to 21 of the Adhiniyam.

In the case of Basant Singh Vs. Janki Singh, the High Court laid down several
principles regarding admissions:
1. Statements in the plaint are admissible as evidence, but the court has the
discretion to accept or reject specific statements based on their relevance.
2. There is no distinction between admissions made in a pleading and other
types of admissions.
3. Admissions are always evaluated as a whole and cannot be dissected into
parts.
4. Admissions, though not conclusive evidence, can be challenged by both
parties to demonstrate their truth or falsity.
5. Admissions in the accused's own words are considered strong evidence.

Admissions – an exception to the hearsay rule

Admissions constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. This is so because an

admission, though hearsay, is nevertheless the best evidence. What is said by a
party to the suit is not open to the objection ‘that a party is going to offer worse
evidence than the nature of the case admits’ (the supposition on which the rule
of the best evidence is founded).

4|Page
Thus, if 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 an admission and C
may give evidence of it although C was not present at the time of the loan and
have only heard B admit the fact of the loan. Admissions by conduct Active or
passive conduct may in some circumstances become evidence of an admission.

Australian case, a woman registered the birth of the child but did not enter the
name of the father, his rank or profession. The court said, “That must mean
either that she did not know who the father was and therefore was unable to give
those particulars, or else that she was admitting that the child was illegitimate.
Whichever view is taken, there is an admission of adultery and admissible
evidence of adultery” [Mayo Vs. Mayo (1949) P. 172].

Silence may amount to admission in certain situations. When a statement is

made to a person in his presence and hearing affecting his position seriously and
he does not deny it, he thereby admits the truth of the statement. But silence
will amount to admission only if it is natural to expect a denial or reply. Just as
a denial is not always a negation of liability, failure to deny is not necessarily an
admission of liability.

WHO CAN MAKE ADMISSION ?

Section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act outlines the categories of individuals

whose statements are deemed admissions in a legal proceeding. These five
categories include :-

1. Party to the proceedings - Statements made by the parties involved in a

lawsuit are considered relevant admissions. The term “parties”
encompasses not only those formally listed on the record but also
individuals with an interest in the subject matter, whether or not they
appear on the record. However, individuals appearing as parties on the

5|Page
 record without genuine interest in the subject matter cannot make
admissions binding against others they represent.

2. Authorized agents - Statements made by an agent in a lawsuit are

admissible against the person they represent, but only if these statements
are made while the agency relationship is in effect. Once the agency
terminates, any subsequent statements by the agent have no impact on
the principal.

Sri Chand Gupta Vs. Gulzar Singh - AIR 1992 SC 123 - Agents includes
pleaders, counsel or solicitor and manager of Hindu Joint family.
Admissions made by co-defendants and partners are also admissible.

3. Suitor in representative capacity - When individuals such as trustees,

administrators, or executors litigate in a representative capacity, their
statements are admissible only if made in that capacity. Any declarations
made in their personal capacity are not considered admissions.

Example - as a trustee, executer or administrator or the like, his

representative capacity is distinct from his ordinary capacity, and only
admissions made in the former capacity are receivable whereas statements
made before he acquired the representative character are inadmissible.

4. Party with pecuniary or proprietary interests - In cases where several

individuals share a joint interest in the subject matter of a lawsuit,
admissions made by any one of them are considered admissions against
all parties who share the joint interest. This applies whether these parties
are suing jointly or separately. It’s essential to establish a prima facie
foundation demonstrating the joint interest among the parties involved.

5. Predecessor in title - Statements made by a predecessor-in-title, from

whom the current party to the suit derives their title, are admissible as
admissions. However, this only holds true if the predecessor-in-title made
the statements while still holding the title and not after transferring it.

6|Page
 Statements made after the transfer of title are not regarded as admissions
against the parties in question.

A tenant derives a title from the landlord. Such admissions are relevant if
made during the continuance of the interest of the person making the
statement. Admission of one person is also evidence against others in
respect of privity between them. Here ‘Privity ‘means mutual or successive
relationship to the same right of property.

Section 17 – deals with admissions by persons whose position must be proved

against the party to suit.

It states that ‘statements made by persons whose position or liability it is

necessary to prove as against any party to the suit are admissions’, if such
statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such
position or liability in a suit brought by or against them and if they are made
whilst the person making them occupies such position or is subject to such
liability.

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."

In other words, the statements made relevant under the section are statements
by persons who are not parties to the suit.

7|Page
As general rule statements made by a third party to a suit are not considered as
admissions but Section 17 is an exception to this rule. It 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.

Section 18 – Admissions by persons expressly referred to by the party to suit

This section refers to when a party to the suit refers to a third party regarding
some information a matter of dispute. Under this section, any statement made
by such party will be taken as an admission against the person who referred to
the third party. This Section is another exception to the general rule that
statements made by strangers are not considered as an admission.

Proof Of Admission Against Persons Making Them, And By Or On Their

Behalf – Section 19

Admissions will be proved against the person making it and not in his favour.
The general rule is that one cannot prove a statement in his favour. But section
19 incorporates three exceptions, which, even if being self-serving, can be proved
by the party. These are :-

1. Admissions falling u/s.26 - This exception enables a person to prove his

own statement where the circumstances are such that if he were dead, the
statement would have been relevant in dispute between third parties
(when veracity is not in doubt it can be brought).

2. Statement as to the bodily feeling of the state of mind falling u/s.12 - The
statement of person’s mind or body is relevant under section 12 and

8|Page
 statement narrating such facts which indicate the state of mind or body
made at or about the time when such state existed and which is
accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.

3. Statement otherwise relevant, then it may be proved as otherwise relevant

fact and not as admissions.

Admission to Prove Document – Section 20

Oral Admissions as to contents of documents are relevant – Section 20

Document must be proved by the document itself. But when the document is
not available, then secondary evidence may be given u/s.60.

Section 54 says all facts except the contents of documents or electronic records
may be proved by oral evidence.

Section 58 (v) says oral accounts of the contents of a documents given by some
person who has himself seen it.

Thus, Oral evidence of contents of documents are NOT RELEVANT

(i) If the party is unable to prove that he is entitled to give secondary
evidence
(ii) Unless the genuineness of document is in question

Admissions in civil case – Section 21

Admission in civil suit is not relevant u/s.21 ;

(i) Made under express conditions that evidence is not to be given
(ii) Court infers from the circumstances that both parties agreed that
evidence should not be given

9|Page
Evidentiary value of admission

An admission does not constitute conclusive proof of the facts admitted (Sec.25).
It is only prima facie proof. Thus, evidence can be given to disprove it. The
admissions thus constitute a weak kind of evidence. The person against whom
an admission is proved is at liberty to show that it was mistaken or untrue. But
until evidence to the contrary is given an admission can safely be presumed to
be true. The weight to be attached to it must depend upon the circumstances
under which it is made.

Admission is not conclusive proof of the fact admitted as it is a piece of prima

facia evidence only. But it may operate as an estoppel. The person can be
stopped to deny the truth of the statement.

An admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted and the admissions

duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making
them appears in the witness box or not and whether that party when appearing
as a witness was confronted with those statements in case he made a statement
contrary to his admissions {Bharat Singh Vs. Bhagirath, AIR 1966 SC 405).
Accordingly, where a person was contending that he was not the real owner of a
certain property but he had made statements before the I.T. Officer that he was
the owner of the property, it was held his admission was direct evidence of the
fact of ownership [Union of India Vs. Mokshi Builders (1977) 1 SCC 68].

An admission shifts the onus on the person admitting the fact on the principle
that what a party himself admits to being true may reasonably be presumed to
be so, and until the presumption is rebutted, the fact admitted must be taken to
be established. Thus, a candidate’s declaration in the nomination form has been
held to be an admission against him. The burden lay upon him to show that a
particular statement (his age, for example) was not true.
Admissions may operate as ‘estoppels’ under Sec.31. Where an admission
10 | P a g e
operates so, the party admitting the fact will not be allowed to go against the
facts admitted. An estoppel will arise under Sec.115 when the admission
amounts to a representation that the fact stated is true and the other party has
acted and altered his position on the basis of that representation.

In Bishwanath Prasad Vs. Dwarka Prasad, 1974, the Supreme Court made
further observations-
1. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves though they are not
the conclusive proof of the matter admitted.
2. Admission duly proved are admissible in evidence irrespective of the fact
whether the party making them appeared as a witness or not.
3. Clarification - Admissions will be admissible even when the party is not
called as a witness.

The purpose of contradicting a witness in section 148 and the object of proving
admission here is entirely different. In case of contradiction, it will be necessary
to put the statement to the witness so that he will have an opportunity to explain
it. But it is not so required in admission.

In this context, Justice Krishna Iyer pointed out that admission is substantive
evidence. While the purpose of section 148 is to clear doubt on the
veracity (accuracy, truthfulness, correctness, faithfulness, conformity to facts) of
witness and does not become substantive evidence.

11 | P a g e