Judicial Admissions in Pleadings: Admissible Proprio Vigore Against the Maker

Saji Koduvath Advocate, Kottayam.

Taken from the Blog: Modes of Proof of Documents

Judicial Admissions, Stand on a Higher Footing

Admissions in pleadings (in the same, not earlier, proceedings) are judicial admissions. They stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions.

  • They may give rise to ‘Foundation of Rights’.
  • They are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proofs.
  • Evidentiary admissions  (including that in the previous pleadings or separate proceedings) are not conclusive by themselves and they can be shown to be wrong.

Judicial Admission Must Be in the very Same Litigation

In Umesh Agarwal v. Mahesh Agarwal (Sikkim), 06 Aug 2013, Indian Kanoon, Pius Kuriakose, CJ., held as under:

  • “42. A survey of the various decisions cited before me at the Bar, particularly, the judgment of the Supreme Court in 
    • Karan Kapahi v. Lalchand Public Charitable Trust, AIR 2010 SC 2077, 
    • Basant Singh v. Janki Singh, AIR 1967 SC 341, 
    • Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, (1974) 1 SCC 242,
  • shows that the law contemplates two kinds of admissions – judicial admissions and evidentiary admissions. It is judicial admissions which are contemplated under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. In order to that an admission is a judicial admission, the same has to be an admission through his pleadings or by other materials in writing produced in the very same litigation. All other admissions are evidentiary admissions. Judicial admissions stand on a higher pedestal than evidentiary admissions. Evidentiary admissions will have to be proved against the makers like any other relevant fact.” 

Admission Contained in Pleadings and that in Evidentiary Admissions

An admission made by a party to a suit in an earlier proceeding is admissible against him.

In Ammini Tharakan v. Lilly Jacob, Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & SS Satheesachandran, JJ. (7 Oct 2013) the Kerala High Court held that admission contained in a plaint or written statement or in an affidavit or sworn deposition by a party in a previous litigation would be regarded as an admission in a subsequent action. It can be explained by the maker thereof, unless thereis no estoppel (Sec. 31, Evi. Act). Such an admission is a relevant fact. The courts can arrive at a decision on the basis of the admissions. See:

  • Thimmappa Rai v. Ramanna Rai, (2007) 14 SCC 63 .
  • Deb Prosanna v. Hari Kison, AIR 1937 Cal. 515 ,
  • Chendikamba v. Viswanathamayya, AIR 1939 Mad 446 ,
  • Lal Singh v. Guru Granth Sahib, AIR(38) 1951 Pep 101,  and
  • Mst. Ulfat v. Zubaida Khatoon, AIR 1955 All. 361.

In Ammini Tharakan v. Lilly Jacob (7 Oct 2013) it is observed that Section 17 of the Evidence Act says that a document or a statement which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, is an admission. It was pointed out in this decisions as under:

  • Admissions in pleadings are governed under Section 58 Evidence Act.
  • Section 31 of the Evidence Act, says as to evidentiary admissions.
  • There is distinction between the two.
  • The evidentiary admissions are merely relevant and not conclusive unless they operate as estoppel.
  • An admission by a party in a previous suit is admissible in evidence in a subsequent suit.The burden is upon the party making it to show that it was wrong on the principle that what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so, though the party making the admission may give evidence to rebut this presumption.
  • Unless and until that is satisfactorily done, the fact admitted must be taken to be established.
  • This is true notwithstanding the fact that the statement which amounts to an admission was not put to the party making it, when that person came into the witness box.

The High Court further held as under in Ammini Tharakan v. Lilly Jacob (7 Oct 2013) –

  • “Here, the plaintiff, who was a defendant in Lucy’s suit, had filed Ext.B10 written statement through her power of attorney holder and mother Martha. That written statement contained the clear stand that neither Lucy nor the plaintiff herein had any share in any of the assets forming the estate of late David Tharakan. This statement which amounts to an admission as to a particular state of affairs, has not been explained by the plaintiff either in the plaint or at any point of time in any manner worthy of being accepted as a rebuttal. While it is the law that admission does not confer title, what we treat as admissions here is demonstrative of the plaintiff’s animus in re inheritance to her father’s estate. We proceed to discuss that aspect further in the succeeding paragraph.”

Categorical Admission cannot be Resiled but, may be Explained or Clarified

In Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly, 2008-7 SCC 85, it is held, after considering various decisions including Panchdeo Narain Srivastava (1984-Supp. SCC 594) and Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co. (AIR 1977 SC 680; 1976-4 SCC 320), as under:

  • “28. What, therefore, emerges from the discussions made hereinbefore is that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from but, in a given case, it may be explained or clarified. Offering explanation in regard to an admission or explaining away the same, however, would depend upon the nature and character thereof. It may be that a defendant is entitled to take an alternative plea. Such alternative pleas, however, cannot be mutually destructive of each other.” (Quoted in: Ram Niranjan Kajaria v. Sheo Prakash Kajaria, 2015-10 SCC 203; S. R. Srinivasa v. S. Padmavathamma, 2010-5 SCC 274, )

Admissions in the pleadings are Admissible Proprio Vigore

Admissions in the pleadings are admissible proprio vigore against the maker thereof.

  • See: Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India, AIR 2022 SC 5058;
  • National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rattani, (2009) 2 SCC 75
  • Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain v. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo, 2009-5 SCC 713.
  • Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2009 SC 120; 2008-14 SCC 589.
  • Ranganayakamma v. K.S. Prakash, 2008 15 SCC 673
  • State of Haryana v. M. P. Mohla (SB Sinha, J.), 2007-1 SCC 457
  • Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India, 2006 (12) SCC 233,

Admissions – Best Evidence. Evidentiary Admissions – Not Conclusive

In Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi (M. Hidayatullah, S.K. Das), AIR 1960 SC 100, it was held as under:

  • “In view of all these admissions and the revenue records, it was necessary for the appellant to prove that the admissions were erroneous, and did not bind him. An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous.”

In Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Icharam, AIR 1974 SC 471, 1974-1 SCC 242, held:

  • “Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted.
  • Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under s. 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case,
    • stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions.
  • The former class of admissions are
    • fully binding on the party that makes them and
    • constitute a waiver of proof.
  • They by themselves
    • can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties.
  • On the other hand evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.”

The propositions in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalptram Iccharam, 1974-1 SCC 242 (admissions in pleadings stand on higher footing and are admissible as per Section 58 of the Evidence Act) is referred to in the following decisions:

  • Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, 2022-10 SCC 496,
  • Alagu Pharmacy v. N. Magudeswari, AIR 2018 SC 3821; 2018-8 SCC 311,
  • Ram Niranjan Kajaria v. Sheo Prakash Kajaria, 2015-10 SCC 203,
  • D. N. Jeevaraju v. D. Sudhakar, AIR 2011 SC 1158; 2010-14 SCC 69,
  • S. R. Srinivasa v. S. Padmavathamma, 2010-5 SCC 274,
  • Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (SB Sinha, J.), AIR 2005 SC 809; 2005-11 SCC 314,
  • Epoch Enterrepots v. M. V. Won Fu, AIR 2003 SC 24; 2003-1 SCC 305,
  • Hiralal Moolchand Doshi v. Barot Raman Lal Ranchhoddas, AIR 1993 SC 1449;
  • Arjun Khiamal Makhijani: Prithdayal Chetandas v. Jamnadas C. Tuliani, 1989-4 SCC 612,
  • Inder Mohan Lal v. Ramesh Khanna, AIR 1987 SC 1986; 1987-4 SCC 1.

Inconsistent  Pleadings Not Possible by Addl. or Subsequent Pleadings

In Mohammed Ali v. Khutejatul Kubra, ILR 2001 Kar 4580, 2002(1) KarLJ 596, the Karnataka High Court has held as under:

  • “6. A perusal of the aforesaid order makes it clear that if a party wants to plead a new ground of claim or a statement containing allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same shall be raised by way of amendment only. There is a total prohibition for pleading new claims and inconsistent statements by any other mode except by way of amendment to the existing pleadings. Though subsequent pleadings is permitted under Order 8, Rule 9 of CPC the same cannot be made use for raising pleas which are altogether new and inconsistent with the original pleadings in the written statement. Order 6, Rule 7 of the CPC deals with departure from the previous pleadings, Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC deals with the amendment of pleadings and Order 8, Rule 9 of the CPC deals with subsequent pleadings. When they are read together distinction becomes apparent. Then it is clear by way of subsequent pleadings under Order 8, Rule 9 of the CPC new claims and inconsistent pleas cannot be raised and for raising such pleas one has to resort to Order 6, Rule 18 of the CPC only”.

Amendment of Written Statement to Prejudice Plaintiff – Not Allowed

The Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held in Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co., (1977) 1 SCR 728: AIR 1977 SC 680: 1976-4 SCC 320 – cannot be allowed to withdraw an amendment if such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff and which would cause him irretrievable prejudice. In Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal,1998 (1) SCC 278, the Supreme Court followed the decision, Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co., observing as under:

  • “Even that apart the said decision of two learned judges of this Court Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 303), runs counter to a decision of a Bench of three learned judges of this court in the case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Ladha Ram & Co., (1977) 1 SCR 728. In that case Ray, CJ., Speaking for the Bench had to consider the question whether the defendant can be allowed to amend his written statement by taking an inconsistent plea as compared to the earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that such an inconsistent plea which would displace the plaintiff complete from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statements cannot be allowed. If such amendments are allowed in the written statement plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants. In that case a suit was filed by the plaintiff for claiming a decree for Rs. 1,30,000/- against the defendants. The defendants in their written statement admitted that by virtue of an agreement date 07th April 1967 the plaintiff worked as their stockist-cum-distributor. After three years the defendants by application under order VI Rule 17 sought amendment of written statement by substituting paragraphs 25 and 26 with a new paragraph in which they took the fresh plea that plaintiff was mercantile agent cum-purchaser, meaning thereby they sought to go behind their earlier admission that plaintiff was stockist- cum-distributor. Such amendment was rejected by the Trial Court and the said rejection was affirmed by the High Court in Revision. The said decision of the High Court was upheld by this Court by observing as aforesaid. This decision of a Bench of three learned judges of this the written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff, by amendment such admission of the defendants cannot be allowed to be withdrawn if such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff and which would cause him irretrievable prejudice. Unfortunately the aforesaid decision of three member Bench of this Court was not brought to the notice of the Bench of two learned judges that decided the case in Akshaya Restaurant (supra). In the latter case it was observed by the Bench of two learned judges that it was settled law that even the admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings. The aforesaid observations in the decision in Akshaya Restaurant (supra) proceed on an assumption tat it was the settled law that even the admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings. However the aforesaid decision of the three member Bench of this Court in Modi Spinning (supra) is to the effect that while granting such amendments to written statement no inconsistent or alternative plea can be allowed which would displace the plaintiff’s case the cause him irretrievable prejudice.
  • … We were then taken to another decision of this Court in the case of Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay and another [ 1984 (Supp.) SCC 594]. In that case the plaintiff was held entitled to amend his plaint by submitting that though earlier he stated that the defendant was uterine brother, the plaintiff by amendment in his plaint could submit that the defendant was his brother and the word ‘uterine’ could be dropped. Even in that case the main case put forward by the plaintiff did not get changed as the plaintiff wanted submit that the defendant was his brother. whether the was uterine brother or real brother was a question of decree and depended on the nature of evidence that may be led before the Court. Therefore, the deletion of word ‘uterine’ was not found to be displacing the earlier case of the plaintiff. On the facts of the present case also, therefore, the aid decision cannot be of any assistance to the learned counsel for respondents.
  • In our view, therefore, on the facts of this case and as discussed earlier, no case was made out by the respondents, contesting defendants, for amending the written statement and thus attempting to go behind their admission regarding 5 out of 7 remaining items out of 10 listed properties in Schedule-A of the plaint. However, so far as Schedule-B properties are concerned from the very inception the defendants’ case qua those properties was that plaintiff had no interest therein. By proposed amendment they wanted to introduce an event with reference to those very properties by submitting that they had been in possession of trespassers. Such amendment could not be said to have in any way adversely or prejudicially affected the case of the plaintiff or displaced any admission on their part qua Schedule-B properties which might have resulted into any legal right in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, so far as Schedule-B properties were concerned, the amendment could not be found fault with. Hence exercising the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India we would not be inclined to interfere with that part of the decision of the High Court allowing the amendment in the written statement, even though strictly speaking High Court could not have interfered with even this part of the order under Section 115, CPC.

Erroneous Admissions & Earlier Findings -Effect

In Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100, it was held further as under:

  • “In view of these admissions, the question of burden of proof, as we have already pointed out, is really academic, and if any burden lay upon any party, it was upon the appellant to displace by cogent and convincing evidence that these admissions were erroneous and need not be accepted in proof.”

S, 17, Evidence Act: No distinction – Admission in a pleading and other Admissions

In Basant Singh v. Janki Singh, AIR 1967 SC 341, 1967-1 SCR 1, it is observed as under:

  • “In Phipson on Evidence, 10th Edn, Art. 741, the English law is thus summarised:
    • “Pleadings, although admissible in other actions, to show the institution of the suit and the nature of the case put forward, are regarded merely as the suggestion of counsel, and are not receivable against a party as admissions, unless sworn, signed, or otherwise adopted by the party himself.”
  • Thus, even under the English law, a statement in a pleading sworn, signed or otherwise adopted by a party is admissible against him in other actions. In Marianski v. Cairns (1 Macq. 212 (H.L.).), the House of Lords decided that an admission in a pleading signed by a party was evidence against him in another suit not only with regard to a different subject-matter but also against a different opponent. Moreover, we are not concerned with the technicalities of the English law. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes no distinction between an admission made by a party in a pleading and other admissions. Under the Indian law, an admission made by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other suits. In other suits, this admission cannot be regarded as conclusive, and it is open to the party to show that it is not true.”

Admission is Not Conclusive as to the Truth of the matter

In Kishori Lal v. Mr. Chaltibai, AIR 1959 SC 504, it was held that admissions were not conclusive and that the maker of the admissions is at liberty to prove that the admissions were made mistakenly or that the admissions were untrue, unless such admissions otherwise operate as estoppel. The Supreme Court also noticed in that case that admissions are mere pieces of evidence and that if the truth relating to the matter admitted is known to the parties, the admissions would not be considered as admissions in the true sense. In Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao, AIR 1956 SC 593, the Supreme Court held as under:

  • “An admission is not conclusive as to the truth of the matter stated therein. It is only a piece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which must depend on the circumstances under which it is made. It can be shown to be erroneous or untrue, so long as the person to whom it was made has not acted upon it to his detriment, when it might become conclusive by way of estoppel.”

Court’s Jurisdiction to Require to Prove an Admitted Document

In any case, besides the powers of the court under Sec. 165 of Evidence Act, the scheme of the Procedural Acts (Evidence Act, CPC and CrPC) shows that the court has jurisdiction to require the party concerned to prove that document. We can see it in Sec. 58 of Evidence Act, Order XII, Rule 2A Proviso of the CPC and Sec. 294 of the CrPC .

Section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:

  • “294. No formal proof of certain documents. (1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.
  • (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.
  • (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed:
  • Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.”

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment