Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf
Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf. Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them or his representative in interest; The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following cases: ––
(1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 32.
(2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
(3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission. Illustrations (a) The question between A and B is whether a certain deed is or is not forged. A affirms that it is genuine, B that it is forged. A may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may prove a statement by A that deed is forged; but A cannot prove a statement by himself that the deed is genuine, nor can B prove a statement by himself that the deed is forged.
(b) A, the captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away. Evidence is given to show that the ship was taken out of her proper course. A produces a book kept by him in the ordinary course of his business showing observations alleged to have been taken by him from day to day, and indicating that the ship was not taken out of her proper course. A may prove these statements, because they would be admissible between third parties, if he were dead, under section 32, clause (2).
(c) A is accused of a crime committed by him at Calcutta. He produces a letter written by himself and dated at Lahore on that day, and bearing the Lahore post-mark of that day. The statement in the date of the letter is admissible, because, if A were dead, it would be admissible under (d) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their value. A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.
(e) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit coin which he knew to be counterfeit. He offers to prove that he asked a skilful person to examine the coin as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that that person did examine it and told him it was genuine. A may prove these facts for the reasons stated in the last preceding illustration.
Section 21, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 19 Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Mrityunjoy Sett(d) by Lrs vs Jadunath Basak (d) by Lrs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An admission made by a party in a court of law, originating from the person against whom it is sought to be produced, constitutes the best possible and most reliable form of evidence and shall hold good unless withdrawn or clarified by the admitting party. Such an admission shall carry greater evidentiary weight than uncorroborated documentary evidence like rent receipts, and shall be admissible and usable in all subsequent legal proceedings. Further, where a statutory notice prescribes a one month period expiring with a month of the tenancy, full and complete compliance is achieved when one month's clear time is provided, regardless of whether the underlying tenancy record contains documentary evidence suggesting a different calendar system, unless such evidence is substantiated by credible witness testimony from the document's creator. A High Court acting under Section 100 of the CPC cannot set aside the judgment and decree of a lower appellate court when the High Court itself acknowledges that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, as such interference would be contrary to settled principles of appellate jurisdiction.
On this section: Prescribes the procedure of proving such admissions. The court relied on this section to establish that the respondent's admission in the written statement of the prior suit was admissible as evidence.
-
Mahesh Gautam vs Rajeev Kohli
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mismatch of signatures on a cheque does not escape the penal consequences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly when the cheque is returned due to insufficient funds.
On this section: Excludes self-serving admissions/notices issued post-facto as inadmissible evidence.
-
Seema Thakur vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judicial admissions made by a party in pleadings in earlier civil proceedings constitute a waiver of proof and are fully binding on the party making them. Such admissions stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions and cannot be explained away by alleging collusion between advocates or subsequent disputes between parties. A party cannot contradict judicial admissions made in earlier proceedings and set up a different case in a subsequent suit. Where clear and categorical judicial admissions exist, a suit can be dismissed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC without requiring further trial. Additionally, a suit for cancellation of voidable property documents must be filed within three years of the fact coming to knowledge of the plaintiff, and failure to do so renders the suit barred by limitation.
On this section: Evidentiary admissions can be explained away, distinguishing them from judicial admissions which are binding
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… D.W.1's admission makes it explicit that they have not taken any action for a period of 12 years after having knowledge of the conveyance of the properties. The admission of the D.W.1 amounts to clear admission under Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore, it will bar the defendants raised in the plea of title or possession against the plaintiffs. Therefore also, the questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants and thereby, the Second Appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, …
-
… Paragraph 22 of the decision is relevant and it is extracted below: 'Admissions have to be clear if they are to be used against the person making them. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, in view Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act. Though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. We are of opinion that the admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether the party making them appeared in the witness was confronted …
Questions about Section 21
What have the courts held on Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Mrityunjoy Sett(d) by Lrs vs Jadunath Basak (d) by Lrs (26 Apr 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Prescribes the procedure of proving such admissions. The court relied on this section to establish that the respondent's admission in the written statement of the prior suit was admissible as evidence. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2011 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 21, section 21 IEA, section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mrityunjoy Sett(d) by Lrs vs Jadunath Basak (d) by Lrs (26 Apr 2011).
What should I read with Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 32 (Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant), so none of them can safely be read on its own. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 19 (Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 21, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.