B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 8 Law of Evidence 2025 Jan Question Paper with Solutions

Why admissions are relevant

An admission is a statement by a party, or a person connected with him, that goes against his own interest in the case. People do not usually say things against themselves unless they are true. So the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lets such statements be proved against the party. It does so even though the maker was not on oath. The rules are in sections 17 to 23 and 31. They can be read as eight rules.

Rule 1: what an admission is (section 17)

Section 17 says 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". It must be made by one of the persons, and in the circumstances, set out in the sections that follow. So an admission need not be a full acknowledgment of liability. It is enough that it suggests an inference against the maker.

Rule 2: whose statements count (sections 18 to 20)

Rule 3: against the maker, not for him (section 21)

Section 21 says admissions "may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest". But they "cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them", except in three cases. A party cannot build his own case on his own self-serving statements.

Illustration (a) shows the rule. A says a deed is genuine and B says it is forged. A may prove B's statement that the deed is genuine. But A cannot prove his own statement that it is genuine.

The three exceptions are:

1. Where the statement would be relevant under section 32 if the maker were dead. A ship's captain may prove his own logbook entries, kept in the ordinary course of business (illustration (b)).
2. Where it states a state of mind or body, made at or about the time, and accompanied by conduct making its falsehood improbable.
3. Where it is relevant otherwise than as an admission. An accused may prove that he refused to sell goods below their value, because it explains his conduct (illustration (d)).

Admissions made in the case itself stand higher. Section 58 says facts admitted by the parties at or before the hearing "need not be proved".

Facts. In Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, (1974) 1 SCC 242, a tenant at Surat agreed in a compromise decree to hand over possession and pay arrears. Later he said the decree was a nullity, as no statutory ground for eviction was proved.

Held. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions under section 58 are fully binding on the party. They waive proof, and can by themselves found the rights of the parties. Evidentiary admissions, made outside the case, are not conclusive and can be shown to be wrong. The compromise itself admitted the arrears, so the decree stood.

Rule 7: admissions are substantive evidence

Facts. In Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi, AIR 1966 SC 405, a widow had admitted the existence of a joint Hindu family in earlier documents. The High Court refused to use them, because she was not confronted with them in the witness box.

Conclusion. An admission under section 17 of the 1872 Act is a statement suggesting an inference on a fact in issue or relevant fact. It counts only if made by the persons in sections 18 to 20. It may be proved against the maker but not for him, save the three exceptions in section 21. Oral admissions about documents and "without prejudice" offers are shut out by sections 22 and 23. An ordinary admission is not conclusive but may estop (section 31), while a judicial admission binds (Nagindas Ramdas). Admissions are substantive evidence (Bharat Singh) and are read as a whole (Palvinder Kaur). The rules continue in sections 15 to 21 of the Adhiniyam.