General Principles III: Admissions and Confessions (Sections 15 to 21, BSA 2023) Part 2

This is Part 2; please refer to Part 1 for additional context.

SECTION 19 – Admissions by Persons Whose Liability is Joint with That of a Party

Bare Act Provision:

Section 19 states that where several individuals have a joint interest in the subject matter of a suit, a statement made by one of them relating to the subject matter is admissible as an admission against the others, provided the statement was made while the joint interest existed.

Detailed Explanation:

Section 19 addresses a very specific legal relationship: joint interest or joint liability. It provides that if multiple persons share a legal or financial interest in the same subject matter, then a statement or admission made by one of them is relevant and admissible against all the others. However, the crucial condition is that the statement must have been made during the existence of the joint interest.

This is because the law assumes that people who share interests also act together, and what one says in relation to that shared interest may reflect the common understanding or position of all involved. This principle is deeply rooted in commercial, contractual, and property law, as well as criminal conspiracy and joint tortfeasor contexts.

Key Elements:

1. Joint Interest Must Be Proven: There must be factual or legal proof that the person making the statement and the party against whom it is used share a joint interest — such as business partners, co-owners, co-borrowers, or members of an association.
2. Statement Must Relate to Subject Matter: The statement must concern the issue at stake in the legal dispute.
3. Statement Must Be Made During the Existence of the Joint Interest: If the joint interest had ended (e.g., partnership dissolved), the statement may not be admissible against the others.

Illustrations:

• In a case involving co-owners of a business, if one co-owner writes an email acknowledging that they have violated a licensing agreement, that statement can be used against both owners as long as the business relationship still existed when the email was written.
• If two people jointly borrowed money, and one admits that the debt is due, that statement can be used against both of them.

However, if the partnership was dissolved and a former partner makes a statement afterward, that statement is not admissible against the other former partners under Section 19.

Purpose and Rationale:

The logic is that when people are legally bound together, especially financially, what one says within the bounds of that shared responsibility should affect the others. This prevents people from escaping liability by blaming others in the group while benefiting from joint ventures or partnerships.

It also aligns with the general principle that joint obligations are not divisible unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

Modern Applications:

This principle is often applied in:

• Partnership disputes
• Joint venture liabilities
• Group loans or mortgages
• Joint criminal conspiracies (where relevant facts must be proven)

In the digital age, shared emails, memos, or recorded meetings where one joint participant admits liability can be admissible under this provision, if it was made during the joint arrangement.

Judicial Interpretation and Requirements:

Courts have clarified that:

• A joint interest must be proved by independent evidence the statement itself is not enough to prove joint interest.
• The timing of the statement is crucial. If made after the relationship ended, it cannot bind others.
• This rule does not extend to mere co-accused in criminal trials, unless joint interest in a legal or contractual sense is established.

Case Law Example:

Moirangthem Ibomcha Singh v. State of Manipur (1988)
In this case, two individuals jointly owned a property. One of them made a statement admitting that a portion of the property was sold illegally. The court held that this admission was admissible against both co-owners, since it was made while the ownership was still shared.

Conclusion:

Section 19 prevents parties with joint liability or interest from disowning or avoiding responsibility by arguing that they did not personally make a particular admission. As long as the joint interest existed at the time of the statement, and the statement was related to the shared subject matter, it is admissible against all persons involved.

It ensures accountability within groups and reinforces the principle of mutual responsibility in legal obligations.

SECTION 20 – Admissions by Persons from Whom Parties Derive Their Interest

Bare Act Provision:

Section 20 provides that admissions made by persons from whom the parties to the proceeding derive their interest in the subject matter of the suit are relevant if such admissions were made while the person making the statement held that interest.

Detailed Explanation:

Section 20 deals with a very specific and logical situation where a party to a suit derives their rights or interests from another person. This includes situations such as:

• A person buying or inheriting property
• A transferee under a contract
• A legal representative stepping into the shoes of a deceased person
• An assignee of rights under a legal document

The law says that any statement or admission made by such a predecessor (e.g., seller, ancestor, assignor) is relevant against the successor, but only if the admission was made while the predecessor held that interest.

The principle here is simple: if a person inherits or derives legal rights from someone else, they cannot disown admissions made by that person about the subject matter, especially when the admissions were made at a time when the predecessor had the right or interest.

Illustrations:

1. A sells land to B. Before the sale, A makes a written statement that part of the land belongs to a third party. Later, B tries to claim the full property. A’s earlier admission is admissible against B, since B derives title from A.
2. A father, before his death, admits in a will that part of his estate was borrowed from someone. The son, as legal heir, cannot claim that no such debt exists. The father’s admission, made when he was the owner, binds the son.

Key Conditions for Admissibility:

1. The party in the case must derive their interest from the person who made the admission this can be through sale, transfer, inheritance, assignment, etc.
2. The admission must have been made before the transfer, i.e., while the predecessor still held the right.
3. The subject matter of the admission must relate to the same interest or right that has now passed to the party in the case.

Examples of Derived Interest:

• A buyer of immovable property
• A legatee (someone who receives property through a will)
• A transferee of intellectual property rights
• A person claiming under a general or special power of attorney

Practical Utility of the Section:

Section 20 helps ensure that successors, transferees, or inheritors do not deny previous facts to suit their interest. It upholds continuity of obligations and maintains legal consistency in transactions.

For example, it would be unfair if a person buying land could claim total ownership when the seller had previously admitted that a portion was under dispute. Section 20 avoids such unfairness.

Limitations:

• If the admission was made after the predecessor transferred the right or property, it is not admissible against the new holder. This ensures that former owners cannot affect the rights of current owners once the transfer is complete.
• The admission must relate to the same interest that was transferred. Statements about other rights or matters are not covered.

Modern Relevance:

In modern legal practice, this provision is very useful in:

• Property disputes
• Contract enforcement
• Succession and estate litigation
• Business transfers and mergers

It also applies to digital records if a previous business owner or estate manager sent emails or wrote notes acknowledging certain liabilities, those can be used against the new owner or representative, as long as the admission was made before the transfer.

Case Law Example:

Chandrika Misra v. Hari Saran Misra (1997)
In a dispute over inheritance, the deceased father had admitted in letters that a part of his property had been gifted to a trust. The heirs tried to contest the gift. The court held that the father’s admissions made while he was alive and holding interest in the property were binding on the heirs under this provision.

Conclusion:

Section 20 ensures legal continuity in rights and liabilities. A person who steps into the shoes of another by inheritance, sale, assignment, or otherwise must accept the legal consequences of what the earlier holder of the right said or did. This promotes honesty and prevents successors from claiming rights greater than their predecessors had.

SECTION 21 – Proof of Admissions Against the Person Making Them, and Their Effects

Bare Act Provision:

Section 21 provides that admissions are relevant and may be proved against the person who makes them or their representative in interest, but they are not relevant on behalf of the person who makes them, except in the following cases:

1. When they are relevant otherwise than as admissions.
2. When they relate to a state of mind or body relevant under the Act, if they are made at or about the time when such state existed.
3. When they are accompanied by conduct that renders them relevant.

Detailed Explanation:

This section addresses how and when admissions can be used in court. It clarifies who can use an admission and in what context. The rule is that admissions are generally admissible against the person making them, not in their own favour unless one of the exceptions applies.

This section also reflects a key idea in evidence law: a person should not be allowed to benefit from their own self-serving statements, unless the statement is otherwise independently relevant.

Scope and General Rule:

• An admission can always be used against the person who made it or against their legal successor (such as a legal heir, assignee, or representative).
• However, a person cannot use their own admission to support their case unless it meets specific legal standards outlined in the exceptions.

This rule helps prevent manipulation of the legal system, where parties could make convenient statements just to help themselves during litigation.

Three Exceptions: When a Person Can Use Their Own Admission in Their Favor:

1. When the Admission Is Otherwise Relevant:

If the admission is admissible under some other rule of evidence (e.g., it qualifies as part of a res gestae or explains conduct), it can be used even by the person who made it.

Example:
If a person explains the motive behind an action in real time (e.g., “I am giving him this money as charity”), and this is relevant to a question of intention, the statement is admissible regardless of who offers it.

2. When It Relates to a State of Mind or Body:

Admissions that describe a person’s state of mind or physical condition are admissible if made at or near the time when the condition existed.

Example:
A person says, “I am feeling very anxious and depressed.” This can be relevant in a case where mental condition is an issue, such as in wills or criminal responsibility.

3. When Accompanied by Conduct That Makes It Relevant:

If the admission is part of a broader course of conduct such as actions that show motive, preparation, or intent the statement becomes admissible as part of that conduct.

Example:
A person says, “I am going to return the stolen item,” and is seen walking to the police station with it. This shows repentance and becomes part of relevant conduct.

Implications of This Rule:

This section aims to:

• Prevent fabricated or self-serving statements from being used unless they are backed by independent relevance.
• Promote truthful admissions by making them usable against the person, but not easily by the person for their own benefit.
• Preserve objectivity in court proceedings.

It also allows courts to balance fairness by allowing some admissions to be considered where they genuinely help explain a fact or condition, even if offered by the person who made them.

Modern Application:

With the advent of digital communication, this section now applies to:

• Voice notes and videos of real-time conduct
• Health reports and digital records of state of mind or body
• Chat records that show behavior or intention

If such materials qualify under the exceptions, they can be introduced by the person who made them — but courts will examine them strictly.

Judicial Interpretation and Warnings:

Courts have warned that admissions made to escape legal consequences, or crafted carefully during litigation, must be treated with caution. The general rule remains that self-serving admissions cannot be used unless they fit into a recognized exception.

Case Law Example:

Queen-Empress v. Abdullah (1885)
In this case, the accused made a statement claiming his innocence. The court held that this self-exculpatory statement could not be admitted unless it was independently relevant under another rule of evidence. The judgment remains a landmark in confirming the principle that you cannot prove your own statement unless the law independently allows it.

Conclusion:

Section 21 completes the framework on admissions by clearly defining how, when, and by whom admissions can be used. It strengthens the evidentiary value of voluntary and genuine admissions while limiting the risk of manipulation through self-serving statements. Its exceptions ensure that fairness is preserved, especially where a person's physical condition or state of mind is a key issue.

Difference Between Admission and Confession

Though often used interchangeably in casual conversation, admission and confession are legally distinct under Indian evidence law and now under the BSA 2023. A confession is a type of admission, but it is only made by a person accused of a crime, and only when it directly or substantially admits the guilt.

Detailed Comparison Table:

Illustrative Examples:

• Admission: In a civil suit, the defendant says, “I did receive the money but I forgot to return it.” This is an admission of a relevant fact, not a crime.
• Confession: In a criminal trial, the accused says, “I stabbed the victim because I lost control.” This is a confession because it directly admits guilt.

Key Judicial Viewpoint:

A confession must be clear, complete, and voluntary, admitting either the entire offense or the essential facts that constitute it. Anything less than that, like a partial statement, indirect implication, or vague acknowledgment, is not a confession, though it may be an admission.

Courts have consistently held that confession is the highest form of admission, but only reliable when made freely. If made under pressure, threat, promise, or to a police officer (without being judicially recorded), it is inadmissible.

Additional Insertion: Clarification under Section 15 (When Admission May Not Be Relevant)

Even under Section 15, not every statement made by a party qualifies as an admission. For example:

• Statements made in jest, sarcasm, or unclear context may not be considered as admissions.
• Incomplete statements or statements made without understanding their implications may not carry evidentiary value.

Table: When Admissions May Be Ignored or Challenged