Skip to main content

BSA 2023 PART II - Admissions 15-21

Submitted by Prateek Kher on
Clean notes • exam-ready

Admissions – Sections 15 to 21

Structured rules + exceptions + illustrations + landmark case pointers (as typically taught for the Evidence Act).

Definition Who can admit Against whom Documents rule Without prejudice
On this page
Section 15 – Admission defined Section 16 – Party / Agent Section 17 – Position / liability Section 18 – Referred person Section 19 – Against maker + exceptions Section 20 – Oral admissions & documents Section 21 – Civil “without prejudice” Quick revision sheet
Section 15

Admission Defined

Core definition

Admission = any oral / written / electronic statement suggesting an inference about a fact in issue or relevant fact, made by persons covered under the Act.

Must-have elements
  • Made by a party or a legally connected/authorised person.
  • Form: oral, written, or electronic.
  • Suggests an inference about a fact in issue/relevant fact.
  • Relevancy depends on circumstances in Sections 16–23.
Evidentiary value
  • Admissions are not conclusive.
  • They are strong evidence because self-harming statements are rarely made lightly.
Section 16

Admission by Party to Proceeding or Agent

Who can admit

Rule
  • Statements by a party are admissions.
  • Statements by an authorised agent (e.g., accountant/manager/lawyer) are admissions when made as representative of the party.
  • Statements by persons having proprietary/monetary interest are admissions if made during continuance of that interest.
  • Statements by predecessors/ancestors are admissible if made while their interest existed.
Exam line

Court examines facts to decide whether the person truly acted as an “agent” for admissions.

Landmark case (as commonly cited)

Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal (1979): admissions by party/authorised agent can bind the party if made within authority.

Tip: write “authority + representative capacity” in the margin.
Section 17

Admission by Person Whose Position Must Be Proved

Liability link

Statements by a person whose position/status/liability must be proved against a party are admissions, if (a) the statement would be relevant against that person, and (b) it was made while holding that position.

Common examples
  • Manager of a company
  • Agent of a firm
  • Accountant maintaining books
  • Partner in partnership
  • Trustee managing property
Key condition
  • Must be made during the tenure/continuance of the position.
  • Not after resignation/transfer/ending of authority.
  • Stops parties from escaping liability by distancing themselves from office-holders’ acts.
Illustration
Company denies receiving money from X. Accountant (currently in office) records: “Received 8000 from X on 12th May.” Because the accountant’s position must be proved against the company and the statement was during tenure, it operates as admission against the company.
Section 18

Admission by Person Expressly Referred To

Reference doctrine

If a party refers another person as the source of information regarding a disputed matter, that person’s statement can become an admission against the referring party (doctrine of reference & acceptance).

Landmark case (as commonly cited)
R v. Teal (1840) – often referenced for the principle that referral can make the referred person’s statement operate against the party.
Section 19

Proof of Admissions: Against Maker (and limited use by maker)

Rule + Exceptions

General rule
  • Admissions are relevant mainly against the maker.
  • Maker generally cannot use own admissions to build a self-serving defence.
  • Reason: prevents later “convenient” statements to escape liability.
Exceptions (maker can rely)
  1. If it would be relevant like a dying declaration after death.
  2. Then-existing state of mind/body (intention, fear, pain) with supporting conduct.
  3. If the admission is relevant on another independent ground.
Landmark case (as commonly cited)
Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubey (1883): admission is strong evidence against maker, not ordinarily in favour unless within statutory exceptions.
Section 20

Oral Admissions as to Contents of Documents

Best evidence

Oral admissions about the contents of a document are generally not relevant because the document itself is the best proof (best evidence rule).

When it becomes relevant
  • When secondary evidence is legally permitted (original lost/destroyed/with opponent & not produced).
  • When genuineness is in question (forgery/tampering/genuine dispute).
Landmark case (as commonly cited)
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri (2011) – cited in teaching notes for documentary proof principles and limited role of oral assertions about documents.
Section 21

Civil Cases: “Without Prejudice” / Confidential Admissions

Settlement shield

In civil matters, admissions made on an express condition that they will not be used as evidence, or made in circumstances showing mutual agreement of confidentiality, are not relevant.

Typical settings
  • Mediation
  • Settlement talks
  • Compromise negotiations
Often tagged as without prejudice / no prejudice clause in notes.
Case pointer (as commonly cited)
Govindram v. Shamji & Co. (1953): statements during compromise are generally inadmissible since intended for negotiation, not evidence.
Note: This section is also taught with advocate-evidence interactions where applicable under the Act.
One-page

Quick Revision Sheet