University of Kashmir

School of Law
Subject: Law of Evidence

Section 17, 18, 19 of Evidence Act, 1872

Submitted to: Adv. Nyla Yaseen

Submitted by:-

Name: Sakib Altaf

__________________________________________________________________
Introduction

The literal meaning of the expression “Admission” means "voluntary acknowledgment of the
existence or truth of a particular fact". Admission plays a significant part in judicial
proceedings. An Admission is a statement of fact in which the party making the said statement
concedes that the fact asserted by the other party is true.

Needless to say, if one party to a case proves that the opposite party has admitted their case or
any fact relevant to their case, it makes the work of the court much easier by waiving off the
requirement of producing evidence.

Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 defines admission as “a statement, oral or
documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in
issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances,
herein after mentioned.”

As per the above definition, to constitute admission, the following characteristics must be
present:

1) a statement should have been made, either orally or in writing or in any electronic
form; and

2) such a statement should make inference to any fact in issue or to a fact which is
relevant to the case; and

3) the said statement must be made by any person mentioned under the Evidence Act;
and

4) the circumstance under which the said statement is made must be the one prescribed
under the Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated in a plethora of cases that admissions should be
clear, accurate and specific. Any admission should be of a precise fact and there should not be
multiple inferences available for admission.

In Nathoo Lal v. Durga Prasad AIR 1954 SC, it was held that whatever is admitted by the party
in the court must be presumed to be true unless the contrary is proven but before this
proposition can be taken it must be shown that the admission by the party is clear and
unambiguous as must be conceived unless explained.

In Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam (1974 1 SCC 242), the Supreme Court of India
dilated on the effects of admission. It was observed that where the admissions are true and
clear of any ambiguity, they shall be considered sufficient for proving any fact in issue or any
relevant fact.

An admission is the best evidence against the party making the same unless it is untrue and
made under the circumstances, which does not make it binding on him. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has laid down that an admission made by a party in a previous case can be used against
him in other cases. However, in other cases, it will not be regarded as conclusive and it is on the
party to the suit to disprove the admission.

Moreover, the admission made by a party in a plaint could be used as evidence against that
party in another suit only if it has been duly signed and verified by that party.

Furthermore, all the statements made in the plaint are admissible as evidence. The court is,
however, not bound to accept all the statements but it has the discretion to accept some and
reject the rest.

An admission has the effect of shifting the onus of proving to the contrary on the party against
whom it is produced with the result that it casts an imperative duty on such party to explain it.
In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it is presumed to be true. An admission constitutes
a substantive piece of evidence in the case; and, for that reason, can be relied upon for proving
the truth of the facts incorporated therein.

As already submitted earlier, and being reiterated at the risk of repetition, an admission, in
order to be competent and to have the aforementioned value and effect, should be clear,
certain and definite, and not ambiguous or vague.

There are two types of admissions, viz. Judicial admissions and Extra-judicial admissions.
Judicial admissions are formal while extra-judicial admissions are informal. Judicial admissions
are made during the proceeding of the case but extra-judicial admissions are made outside the
court, in the normal course of life and do not appear on the record of the case. Judicial
admissions are fully binding on the party who made them and they constitute a waiver of proof.
Unlike judicial admissions, extrajudicial admissions are not fully but partly binding on the
parties. However, they are binding in cases where they operate as or are having the effect of
estoppel, in which cases they are fully binding ( as observed in the case of Ajodhya Prasad
Bhargava v. Bhawani Shankar Bhargava AIR 1957).

Section 18 says that:

“Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the
Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him
to make them, are admissions.”

“By suitor in representative character– Statements made by parties to suits suing or sued in a
representative character, are not admissions unless they were made while the party making
them held that character.

Statements made by

1. A party interested in subject-matter–persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest

Thus, this Section lays down five classes of persons who can make admissions

1. Party to the proceeding:

It is a fundamental principle that all statements of the parties in a suit or proceedings are
relevant. For example, in a case, the Defendant was seeking declaration that she was the only
legally married wife of the deceased. However, she also admitted that plaintiff was also legally
married wife of the deceased. In this case, admission of defendant was held to be substantive
evidence in support of marriage between plaintiff and deceased.
It may be apposite to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that
where there are more than one plaintiffs or defendant to a suit the statements of one plaintiff
or defendant should not bind co-plaintiffs or co-defendants respectively. The Supreme Court
opined that a party is bound by their statement only to the extent of their own interests. An
admission is only best evidence against the party making it. Moreover, an admission made by a
witness cannot be regarded as an admission made by the party who called him.
2. An agent authorized by such party
According to the law of agency, the statements of the agent are admissible against the
principal. Needless to say, the agent should have, either expressed or implied, authority to
make such statement(s). Moreover, such statement(s) can bind the Principal only during
the continuance of the agency and the fact of the agency must be proved before the
admission of agent can be received.

Any statement as to the facts made by a lawyer with full authority of his client is an
admission against the said client.

3. The party suing or sued in a representative character, making admissions while holding
such character:
An admission by one partner made in a representative capacity is evidence against the firm
provided it is made in the ordinary course of business, where several persons are jointly
interested in the subject matter of the suit. An admission made by any one of them is
receivable not against himself but against others whether they are suing or sued.
In case of ancestral property, admission by father would be admissible against the son, the
former being the representative interest.

4. A person who has any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the
proceeding, during the continuance of such interest

Admission made by such a persons who, though not party to the proceeding, has a
pecuniary or proprietary interest in the subject matter, is relevant provided the statement is
made by him in the character of a person jointly interested. For example, when certain
goods were consigned for carriage, then both the consigner and consignee have interest in
goods.

5. A person from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject
matter of the suit, during the continuance of such interest.

Under section 18(2) the statement(s) of a person, for example a “predecessor in title”, from
whom the parties to the suit derive their interest in the subject matter of the suit are
admissible. However, as reiterated by the Courts in a plethora of cases, it has to be shown
that such statements were made during the continuance of their interest in the subject
 matter of the suit. Statement(s) made after parting with the interest cannot be accepted as
admission.

Section 19 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with admissions by persons whose position
must be proved as against party to suit.

As per the general rule contained in section 18, it is not permissible to take statements from
people who are strangers to the suit. This Section lays down one of the exceptions to the
general rule and it shows when and under what circumstances third party admission to a suit
can be taken.

“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 statement by C that he owed B rent is an admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if A

Under Section 19, the parties to the proceeding may use the statement of a third person if such
statement contained an admission against the third person’s own interest and could have been
used against him if he sued or was sued in connection with matter involving the position or
liability affected by that admission.

It must, however, be noted that the admissibility of statement made by a third person
depends upon the proof of his position as against the parties to the suit or proceeding.
Moreover, an admission by the third person is relevant only up to his liability.
In Ali Moidin Ravuthan v. Elayachanilathi Kombi Achan (1913) 5 Mad 239, two people A and B
borrowed money from a lender C. C brought a suit against A alone. A said that B should also be
joined with him since there is a joint liability on him also. It was held by the court that the
admissions of B while borrowing money is relevant between A and C, though he was alive and
was not cited as a witness.

In the case of Appavu v. Nanjappa ILR 25 Mad LJ 329, it was observed that “The object of this
section is not to lay down that certain statements are relevant or admissible, but merely to add
to the category of persons by whom a statement may be made before it can be considered to be
an admission within the terms of the Indian Evidence Act. The statements referred to in Section
19 become admissible provided they satisfy the requirements of Section 17 as regards their
nature, and Section 21 or any of the following sections, as regards their liability.”