SEC. 17: Admission
“An 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 of 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 of 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 of the loan and had only heard B admit the fact of the loan.
Forms of 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 i.e. 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 Whose 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.),
(iv) a person who has a proprietary/ pecuniary interest in the subject matter of suit during the continuance of such interest,
(v) a person from whom the parties to suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of suit during the continuance of such interest (predecessors-in-title) (Sec. 18);
(vi) 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);
(vii) a person to whom a party to suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute (Sec. 20).
It is important to note that under Sec. 18 an admission by one of several defendants in a suit is no evidence against another defendant, for otherwise the plaintiff can defeat the case of the other defendants through the mouth of one of them. So a defendant is bound by his statements only to the extent of his own interest. So is true of the statement of a co-plaintiff. But since every plaintiff has a pecuniary interest in the subject matter of suit, his statement can fall in that category.
The admissions of an agent are admissible against the principal. Similarly, the acknowledgment of a debt by a partner is an admission against the firm. Likewise, admissions of facts made by
a pleader in court, on behalf of his client, are binding on the client But, an admission by a pleader on a point of law will not bind the client.
Sec. 19 deals with statements of persons whose position is in issue, though they are not parties to the case. The section is based on the principle that where the right or liability of a party to a suit depends upon the liability of a third person, any statement by that third person about his liability is an admission against the parties. 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 relevant fact against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.
Sec. 20 forms an exception to the rule that admissions by strangers to a suit are not relevant. Thus, the admissions of a third person are also receivable in evidence against the party who has expressly referred another to him for information in regard to disputed matter. Illust. to this section reads: 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.
SEC. 21: Against whom Admission May be Proved
First part of 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 subsequently 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 of 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. (b) to Sec. 21 is on the point. If the question was whether a ship was lost due to negligence or otherwise and the captain of 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 of 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 of 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 of the existence of any state of mind or body (relevant or in issue) made at or about the time when such a state of 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 of 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.
Where the question is whether a person received a stolen property with knowledge that it was stolen. In order to prove that he did not have guilty knowledge, he offers to prove that he refused to sell the property below its value or natural price. His statement explains the state of his mind and is accompanied by the conduct of the refusal to sell. He may thus prove his statement [Illust. {d)]. Similarly, where a person is charged with having in possession a counterfeit coin with knowledge that it was counterfeit. He offers to prove that he consulted a skilful person on the matter and he was advised that the coin was genuine. He may prove this fact. [Illust. {e)].
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 of the injury. This statement may be proved by or on behalf of 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]
SEC. 22: When Oral Admissions as to Contents of Documents are Relevant
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 of the contents of such document under Sec. 65, or unless the genuineness of 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 publicae ut finis litium (it is in the interest of 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” i.e. 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 settle 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 of Admissions
An admission does not constitute a conclusive proof of the facts admitted (Sec. 31). It is only a 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.
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 Prasadv 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 of a fact in issue, such an admission would be only a truncated admission.
Comments