Section 17, Admission defined: 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, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.

Scope:

Section 17 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 18 to 30.

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 (M.M. Chetti v Coomaraswamy AIR 1980 Mad.

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 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.

Forms of admissions

Admissions are broadly classified into two categories: (a) judicial or formal admissions, and (b) extra-judicial or informal admissions. 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. 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.
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.
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).
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 v 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.

Persons whose admissions are relevant (Sees. 18-20)

Sees. 18,19 and 20 make 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 the suit, his statement can fall into that category.
The admission of an agent is admissible because the principal is bound by the acts of his agent done in the course of his business and within the scope of his authority. Thus, the acknowledgement 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.
Illustration to Sec. 19 – 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 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 an uncertain or disputed matter. To attract the operation of Sec.20, there must be an express reference for information in order to make the statement of the person referred to admissible. Illustration of 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.

Against whom admission may be proved (Sec.21)

This section pertains to the proof of admission. It states that an admission, evidence against the party who made it, cannot be proved by that party but must be proved against them. In the case of Rv Petcherini, Crompton J explained this concept further. 

He stated that declarations made by an individual accompanying an act can be considered as evidence. Still, declarations made days or weeks before the relevant transaction cannot be used as evidence. Allowing such declarations as evidence would enable individuals to create grounds for escaping the consequences of their wrongful acts through strategic declarations.

However, an admission can be proved in favour of the party who made the statement if that party has deceased. This falls under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the deceased party’s representatives can prove the statement. Additionally, if the statement relates to a bodily feeling or state of mind, the person making the admission can also provide proof of it. 

The state of mind should be substantiated with appropriate conduct since a person genuinely experiencing pain would behave differently from someone faking it. Furthermore, certain other relevant statements can be proved by the party making them, such as when the statement itself is a fact in issue or part of the res gestae.

Sections 22 and 22A

Section 22, in conjunction with Section 65 and the addition of Section 22A through the Information Technology Act, 2000, establishes that oral admissions regarding the content of documents or electronic records are irrelevant unless the question pertains to the authenticity or forgery of the document or record.

Admission in civil cases, when relevant (Sec.23)

Section 23, Admissions in civil cases, when relevant: 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, attorney or vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under section 126.

Evidentiary value of admission

An admission does not constitute conclusive proof of the facts admitted (Sec.31). 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.

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 v 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 v 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 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.

Conclusion:

The fact in issue is alleged or disputed in a legal procedure is referred to as the “facts in issue.” The production of proof is waived or dispensed with by a declaration of facts that admits the opponent’s claimed truth to be true. It is possible to define admission as a declaration made by a person in connection to the relevant facts or the facts at dispute.However, not all of the statements made in this manner cannot be considered admissions. Only those declarations that are made within the conditions outlined in Sections 18 to 20 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 are regarded as admissions and are therefore admissible as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.

Admissions are made when a party’s actions in the procedure with regard to the issue at hand are manifestly at odds with the veracity of his claim. The idea behind this is that until a thing is actually true, no one would accept or admit it because it conflicts with their interests.