Evidence Assignmnt - Admissn

8/12/2019 Evidence Assignmnt - Admissn

1/7

Introduction

In General, Admission is a voluntary acknowledgment of a fact. Importance is given to those

admissions that goes against the interests of the person making the admission. For example,

when A says to B that he stole money from C, A makes an admission of the fact that A stolemoney from C. This fact is detrimental to the interests of A. The concept behind this is that

nobody would accept or acknowledge a fact that goes against their interest unless it is indeed

true. Unless A indeed stole money from C, it is not normal for A to say that he stole money from

C. Therefore, an admission becomes an important piece of evidence against a person. On the

other hand, anybody can make assertions in favor of themselves. They can be true or false. For

example, A can keep on saying that a certain house belongs to himself, but that does not mean

it is necessarily true. Therefore, such assertions do not have much evidentiary value.

Sections Including evidence of Admission

Section 17of Indian Evidence Act defines Admissionas thus -

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.

As per this definition, any statement, which suggests any inference about any fact in issue or

relevant fact, and which is made by persons under certain circumstances, is an admission.

These circumstances are mentioned in Section 18 to 20 as follows -

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.


2/7

Case Laws

M/S. Nataraja Communications, vs M/S. Digicable Network (India)

Telecom Disputes Settelement & Appealate Tribunal New Delhi, 248(C) of 2011

The parties admittedly entered into a franchise agreement , in terms whereof the respondent

agreed to supply signals of the channels, in respect whereof it had been operating as a Multi

Service Operator.

The Franchisee agrees to disclose the correct number of Subscribers of his cable TV Network in

the Territory to the Franchiser regularly.

Later respondent served a notice upon the petitioner in terms of Clause 4.1 of the

Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation, 2004 (13 of

2004) as amended from time to time (The Regulations) as also a public notice under Clause 4.3

thereof. Supply of signal to the network of the petitioner also was discontinued. Questioning

the said notice as also the public notice, the petitioner filed a petition before this Tribunal

which was marked as Petition No.360(C) of 2010.

It was later found out that it is true that ordinarily the intention of the parties to a documentmust be gathered from the language in which the relevant terms and conditions are couched

and no oral evidence can be permitted with a view to varying or contradicting the terms of the

document. To put it differently, if the terms of the document are clear and unambiguous,

extrinsic evidence to ascertain the true intention of the parties is inadmissible because Section

92 mandates that in such a case the intention must be gathered from the language employed in

the document. But if the language employed is ambiguous and admits of a variety of meanings,

it is settled law that the 6th proviso to the section can be invoked which permits tendering of

extrinsic evidence as to acts, conduct and surrounding circumstances to enable the court to

ascertain the real intention of the parties. In such a case such oral evidence may guide the court

unravelling the true intention of the parties. The object of admissibility of such evidence in such

circumstances under the 6th proviso is to assist the court to get to the real intention of the

parties and thereby overcome the difficulty caused by the ambiguity. In such a case the

subsequent conduct of the parties furnishes evidence to clear the blurred area and to ascertain

the true intention of the author of the document."


3/7

Mrs. Veena N. Ruia vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 September, 2011 , Nagpur

Court

In this Case the Judge rejected the evidence provided by parties in this case, Learned Senior

Counsel then pointed out how the expert has applied a well known method of "sinking fund"

and used CSR rates by adding 25% to it to match the type of construction available whileworking out its cost. The scientific method adopted by him have not been doubted in cross by

the State. It is further contended that evidence of Shri Deshmukh, LAO is biased and hence, not

acceptable. Similarly, though other witness Shri Kale accepted that structures may have future

life of 30 to 40 years, he in calculations adopted it to be 7 years only. His evidence is also urged

to be biased and his failure to support his computation in Court despite grant of adjournments

is pressed into service to discard it. Comparative chart prepared to show at glance the working

of costs of structures by following sinking fund method (used by Shri Gandhi) and constant%

method (used by State's witness Shri Kale) to age and future life (30 years) of respective

structures mostly due to Kale's evidence that future life was of about 30 to 40 years is also

pressed into service.

Sabhia Md.Yusuf A.H.Mulla(D) By vs Spl.Land Acqn.Offr.& Ors. on 2 July, 2012

With a view to implement the New Bombay Project, the Government of Maharashtra acquired

large tracts of land in different villages of the State. The appellants land measuring 3,86,790

square meters in Roadpali (Kolekhar) Village, Panvel Taluka, Raigad District was also acquired

for the project. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the

Act) was issued on 3.2.1970 and declaration under Section 6(1) was issued on 24.8.1972. The

Special Land Acquisition Officer passed different awards for different parcels of land and fixed

market value of the acquired land in the range of Rs.1.75 per square meter to Rs. 2.50 per

square meter.

On behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, no evidence was produced in support of the

assertion that the acquired land was undeveloped and it did not have non-agricultural

potential.

The Reference Court considered the evidence produced by the appellants and held that the

acquired land had non-agricultural potential and the Special Land Acquisition Officer committed

grave error by fixing market value on the premise that it was an undeveloped land and was

being used for agricultural purposes only.

It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential

value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be

deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain


4/7

variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development

and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the

plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land

may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be

the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock

or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may beincurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully

developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on

the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence,

merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly

when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting

the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area.

Mariyam Akhter & Anr vs Wazir Mohd on 14 October, 2010

As regards the finding of the learned Magistrate pertaining to the admission made before the

Tehsildar, Ramnagar by the petitioner on her divorce, it is contended that said admission is

valid in law because the same was not made in any proceedings in the Court of law and was not

to be put any cross-examination. Even the Tehsildar, before whom such statement was made,

was not examined by the respondent to prove the said factum. According to the learned

counsel this is not acceptable under the law of evidence. Mere making of such statement

before a Tehsildar in a matter of seeking Residence of Backward Area Certificate will not go to

show that the petitioner was a divorcee and thereby to make her disentitlement from getting

maintenance.

Later it was held that it was well settled that a partys admission as defined in Sections 17 to 20

of the Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act) fulfilling the requirements of Section 21, of the Act, was

substantive evidence proprio vigore. An admission, if clearly and unequivocally made was the

best evidence against the party making it and though not conclusive, shifted the onus on to the

maker on the principle that what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be

presumed to be so and until the fact admitted was rebutted the fact admitted must be taken to

be established.


5/7


6/7

Law Commission Report : 185th

Reportpart IVSection 23

In the 69th Report, the Commission pointed out that the section protects only admissions in (i)

and express agreement prohibiting the giving of evidence, or (ii) circumstances from which such

an agreement can be implied. This requirement may not cover all statements made fornegotiations. It would be fair to provide that statements made with a view to, or in the course

of negotiations for a settlement should always fall within the section. It recommended insertion

of an Explanation below sec.

Explanation 2: Where an admission is made for the purpose of or in the course of negotiation

of a settlement of compromise of a disputed claim, the parties shall be deemed to have agreed

together that evidence of the admission shall not be given.

We agree respectfully that such a provision is necessary but instead of an Explanation, the

following words can be added after the words upon express condition that evidence of it is not

to be given- or if it is made for the purposes of or in the course of a settlement of

compromise of a disputed claim. We may also refer to the observation in the 69th

Report that

this Explanation does not affect the operation of Order 23 R 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908,

since the compromise in writing can be proved.

We have recommended insertion of a new section 132A for disclosure of source of information

contained in a publication. According to this proposed provision, a person in certain

circumstances may be required to disclose source of information contained in a publication.

There is a need to exempt provision of section 23, in case a person who made a publication,

from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be required to give evidence under

proposed section 132A. In this regard, reference may be made to the discussion made underproposed section 132A.

Therefore we recommend that sec. 23 should upon such amendments, read as follows:

Admission in civil cases when relevant

(1) In civil cases, no admission is relevant:

(a) if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given; or

(b) if it is made for the purposes of or in the course of a settlement of compromise of a

disputed claim; or

(c) under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together

that evidence of it should not be given, unless the party who made the admission and

the party in whose favour the admission is made agree that evidence be given, or

evidence as to the admission becomes necessary to ascertain if there was at all a

settlement or compromise or to explain any delay where a question of delay is raised;


7/7

(2) Such an admission which is not relevant under sub-section (1) may be relevant in so far as it

touches upon an issue between the person who made the admission and a third party to the

admission.

(3) Nothing in this section shall exempt

(a) any legal practitioner from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be

compelled to give evidence under section 126; or

(b) a person who made a publication, from giving evidence of any matter of

which he may be required to give evidence under section 132 A.

Explanation I: legal practitioner as used in this section shall have the meaning assigned to it in

Explanation 2 to section 126.

Explanation II: publication as used in this section shall have the meaning assigned to it in para

(a) of the Explanation to section 132 A.

Conclusion

This section basically outlines the importance of proof to be given on ay personal

acknowledgement admitted by the parties. It prevents the parties from being manipulating any

part of the admission made unless backed by any evidence.

So this section brings into an exception to rule of admission which otherwise is said in sec 17 to

be that admission is a waiver of proof, but here proof is essentially to be given along with the

admission made by the parties.

When a person makes an admission without prejudice that is to say, upon the condition that

the evidence of it shall not be given, it cannot be proved against him. This protection or

privilege against disclosure is intended to encourage parties to settle their differences amicably

and to avoid litigation if possible.

Documents

Evidence Assignmnt - Admissn