Admission , sec 17 to 23

SEC. 17 : Admission Defined “A n admission is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any
inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by a party or any person connected
with him, and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned.”

According to Sec 17, an admission is a statement which suggests some inference as to the existence of a
fact in issue or a relevant fact. An ‘admission' is a statement o f fact which waives or dispenses with the
production of evidence by conceding that the fact asserted by the opponent is true. If, for example, a
person is sued for the recovery of a loan and there is an entry in his account book recording the fact o f
the loan, that is an admission on his part of his liability or if he makes any statement to the effect that
“he does owes the money” that will also be an admission being a direct acknowledgment of liability.

Reasons for Admissibility of Admissions

An admission is a relevant evidence. 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.

(ii) Admissions as statement against interest — 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 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.

(iv) Admissions as evidence of truth - The most widely accepted reason that accounts for
relevancy of admission is that what a party himself admits to be true may be presumed
to be so.
Admissions constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. This is so because an admission, though a
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 rule of best evidence is founded). 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 o f the loan and had only heard B admit
the fact of the loan.
Forms o f Admissions
Every written or oral statement by a party about the facts of the case is an admission. Admissions are
broadly classified into two categories:
(a) judicial or formal admissions, and
(b) extra-judicial or informal admissions. It is generally immaterial to whom an admission is made. An
admission made to a stranger is relevant.

Judicial 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. In comparison, the evidentiary
admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence, can be shown to be wrong. Informal or casual
ie. extrajudicial admissions are those which do not appear on the record of the case, and may occur in
the ordinary course of life, or in the course of business. However, unlike judicial admissions, they are
binding on the party only partially, except in cases where they operate as or have the effect of estoppel .

Active or passive conduct may in circumstances become evidence of an admission. Silence may amount
to admission in certain situations [See illustration (g) to Sec 81. But, silence will amount to admission
only if it is natural to expect a denial or reply.

SECS. 18-20: Persons W hose Admissions are Relevant

Sections 18, 19 and 20 makes the statements of the following persons relevant

(i) a party to the suit or proceeding,

(ii) an agent authorized by such party,

(iii) a party suing or sued in a representative character making admissions while holding such
character (e.g. trustees, executors, etc.),

(v) a person who has a proprietary/ pecuniary interest in the subject matter of suit during
the continuance of such interest,

(vi) a person from whom the parties to suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter
o f suit during the continuance of such interest (predecessorsin-tide) (Sec. IS);
(vii) a person whose position it is necessary to prove in a suit, if such statement would be
relevant in a suit brought by or against himself (Sec. 19);

(viii) a person to whom a party to suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a
matter in dispute (Sec. 20).
SEC. 21: A g a in st whom Admission May be Proved

First part o f Sec. 21 — “Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes
them, or his representatives in interest”
Sec. 21 lays down the principle as to proof of admissions. It is based upon the principle that an admission
is an evidence against the party who had made the admission and, therefore, it can be proved only
against him. No man should be at liberty to make evidence for himself through his own statements (Le.
he himself cannot prove his own statements). Granted this facility, every litigant would construct a
favourable case by his own statement. Thus, self-favouring admissions are not permissible.

Illustration (a) to Sec. 21 explains the main principle: The question between A and B is, whether certain
deed is or is not forged. A affirms that it is genuine, B that it is forged. A may prove a statement by B that
the deed is genuine, and B may prove a statement by A that the deed is forged; but A cannot prove a
statement by himself that the deed is genuine, nor can B prove a statement by himself that the deed is
forged.

A party can prove a self-serving statement only under the exceptions laid down in Sec. 21. Where,
however, a person’s self-serving statement subsequendy becomes adverse to his interest, it may be
proved against him as an admission.

Second part of Sec. 21 (Exceptions to Sec. 21) — Admissions cannot be proved by, or on behalf of, the
person who makes them, except in the following three cases:

Exception 1 — “When it is o f such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant
as between third persons under Sec. 32”.

Thus, the statement should have been relevant as dying declaration or as that of a deceased person
under Sec. 32. Illust. (£) to Sec. 21 is on the point. If the question was whether a ship was lost due to
negligence or otherwise and the captain o f the ship was dead, the contents of his personal diary would
have been relevant though they operate in his favour. Illustration (c) is also on the same point. A is
accused o f crime committed by him at Calcutta. He produces a letter written by him and dated at
Lahore on that day and bearing the Lahore postmark of that day. The statement in the date o f the letter
is admissible, because if A were dead, it would be admissible under Sec. 32 (2).

Exception 2 — “When the admission consists of a statement o f the existence o f any state o f mind or
body (relevant or in issue) made at or about the time when such a state o f mind or body existed, and is
accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable”.

The exception enables a person to prove his statements as to his state of body or o f mind. If, for
example, a person is injured and the question is whether the injury was intentional or accidental, his
statement as that time as to the way he was injured can be proved by himself.
Exception 3 — “An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant
otherwise than as an admission”.

This exception is intended to apply to cases in which the statement is sought to be used in evidence
otherwise than as an admission, for instance, as part of the res gestae, or as a statement accompanying
or explaining particular conduct. Where, for example, immediately after a road accident, a person pulled
up to the injured who then made a statement as to the cause o f the injury. This statement may be
proved by or on behalf o f the injured person, it being a part of the transaction which injured him (Sec.
6). Where A says to B, “You have not paid back my money”, and B walks away in silence, A may prove his
own statement as it has influenced the conduct of a person whose conduct is relevant (Sec. 8).

Admissions How Far Relevant [Secs. 22-23]

Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing
to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence o f the contents of such document
under Sec. 65, or unless the genuineness o f the document produced is in question.

When the question is whether a document is genuine or forged, oral admissions about this fact are
relevant. A document can be proved by the primary evidence (original document) or secondary evidence
(attested copies or oral account).

SEC. 22A: When Oral Admissions 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.*’

SEC. 23: Communication without Prejudice

“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 or attorney from
giving in evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under Sec. 126
(communication made to lawyer in furtherance of a crime).

Sec. 23 gives effect to the maxim interest rei pubHcae ut finis htinm (it is in the interest o f the State that
there should be an end of litigation). Sec. 23 applies only to civil cases. When a person makes an
admission “without prejudice” Le. upon the condition that the evidence of it shall not be given, it cannot
be proved against him.

The words “without prejudice” simply mean this: “I make you an offer and if you do not accept it, this
letter is not to be used against me”. This protection or privilege against disclosure is intended to
encourage parties to setde their differences amicably and to avoid litigation if possible.
The rule under Sec. 23 applies only if there is a dispute or negotiation with another, or if they are written
bona fide. Sec. 23 does not protect all letters merely because they are headed with the words “without
prejudice”. An admission made to a stranger, under whatever terms as to secrecy, is not protected by
law from disclosure. When letters marked “without prejudice” are tendered in evidence, and the other
party admits them (instead of objecting to them), the admission implied that the other party has waived
his privilege, and such letters can then be used in a judicial proceeding.

Evidentiary Value o f Admissions

An admission does not constitute a conclusive proof of the facts admitted (Sec. 31). It is only a
primafacie 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.

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 made a statement contrary to his admissions (Bharat Singh v Bhagirath AIR 1966
SC 405). Sec. 17 makes no distinction between an admission made by a party in his pleading and other
admissions. Thus, an admission made by a person in plaint signed and verified by him may be used as
evidence against him in other suits. There is no necessary requirement of the statement containing the
admission having to be put to the party because it is evidence proprio vigore (of its own force). Thus, an
admission in an earlier suit is a relevant evidence against the plaintiff [Bishwanath Prasad v Dwarka
Prasad (1974) 1 SCC 78].

The admissions at best only suggest inferences. The court must examine the statement inside out and
before holding a party to his statements must see that the statement is clear, unequivocal and
comprehensive. If a party’s admission falls short of the totality of the requisite evidence needed for legal
proof o f a fact in issue, such an admission would be only a truncated admission.