Facts admitted need not be proved
Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with facts admitted need not be proved. No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadi 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 Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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.
No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions. CHAPTER IV. –– OF ORAL EVIDENCE
Section 58, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 53 Facts admitted need not be proved 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-7.pdf 2008-03-07. CA 1808/2008. Sinha / Sirpurkar. DATE-CHECK false positive (1999 Will / 2000 written statement / 2002 HC); body is the named 7 Mar 2008 reportable. Isolates IEA 58: facts admitted in pleadings need not be proved; a categorical admission cannot be resiled from by later amendment. O6 R17 is discussed as the amendment vehicle — do not invent CPC O6 R17 as a sections.csv unit. Not IEA 17 (definition of admission). Carry iea 58 → bsa 53 near-identical 0.9493, basis=successor. Charanjit Lal Mehra is O12 R6 judgment on admission, not this isolate.
On this section: IEA 58 facts admitted in pleadings need not be proved; a categorical admission cannot be resiled from by later amendment (Gautam Sarup). Not IEA 17. Do not invent CPC O6 R17.
-
S. R. Srinivasa vs S. Padmavathamma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A will alleged to be executed by a testator can only be proved as valid and enforceable if: (1) At least one attesting witness (if alive and capable) is examined to prove its execution in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act; (2) A scribe's signature on a document, without evidence that the scribe signed 'animo attestandi' (with intention to attest), cannot substitute for attesting witness examination; (3) When a will's execution is surrounded by suspicious circumstances (such as vague property description, beneficiary being present during execution and registration, unexplained procedural irregularities, or unreasonable exclusion of heirs), the propounder bears a heightened burden to remove all reasonable doubts; (4) Mere admissions about the existence of a will (without admissions as to its genuineness) do not dispense with the statutory requirement of formal proof; (5) When a female Hindu dies intestate without issue, and the property was inherited by her from her father or mother, the property shall devolve upon the heirs of the father under Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, not upon strangers.
On this section: Discussed in relation to admissions by parties. The Court examined whether admissions in pleadings about the execution of a will constitute judicial admissions that dispense with proof requirements under Section 63 and 68.
-
Balraj Taneja vs Sunil Madan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a defendant fails to file a written statement as required by Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court has discretionary power under Order 8 Rule 10 to either pronounce judgment against the defendant or make such other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. This discretion cannot be exercised mechanically or punitively. Before the court can proceed to decree a suit under Order 8 Rule 10, particularly in cases like specific performance, the court must: (1) satisfy itself that even if facts in the plaint are treated as admitted due to non-filing of written statement, a judgment can legally be passed in favor of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact; (2) ascertain that no disputed questions of fact exist within the plaint itself requiring investigation; (3) ensure that all mandatory legal requirements for the relief sought (such as Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act requiring plaintiff's readiness and willingness) are satisfied; (4) exercise its discretion judicially, considering all circumstances of the case, and not punitively due to procedural default; and (5) write a proper judgment containing concise statement of case, points for determination, decision, and reasons as mandated by Section 2(9) and Order 20 Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A bare decree without reasoning is a material irregularity. Where the plaint itself contains disputed assertions regarding crucial facts (as where defendant claims certificate was sent but plaintiff denies receipt), these disputed facts cannot be treated as admitted merely due to non-filing of written statement; they must be proved by the plaintiff. The court must be cautious and must not proceed blindly under Order 8 Rule 10.
On this section: Provides that facts admitted need not be proved, BUT proviso grants court discretion to require admitted facts to be proved otherwise than by admission. Court emphasized this principle mirrors Order 8 Rule 5 proviso and prevents mechanical reliance on admissions
-
BIMAL SINGH BAID vs PREM PRAQKASH PATWARI
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The protection under Section 7(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 is available to a tenant only once in respect of a specific premises; subsequent defaults, regardless of a change in ownership of the property, render the tenant liable for eviction.
On this section: Facts admitted by the defendant in cross-examination need not be further proved.
-
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: Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions made by parties or their agents stand on higher footing than evidentiary admissions and are fully 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.
-
… Rule 10, in fact, has to be read together with Rule 5 of Order VIII and the position seems to be clear that a trial court, at its discretion, may require any fact, treated as admitted, to be so proved otherwise than by such admission. Similar is the position with section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It must be remembered that a plaint in a suit is not akin to a writ petition where not only the facts are to be pleaded but also the evidence in support of the pleaded facts is to be annexed, whereafter, upon exchange of affidavits, such petition can be decided on affidavit …
-
… He should either stand by his statement made before a court of law or should explain the same sufficiently. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the court will presume that the statement before a court is correct and binding on the party on whose behalf the same has been made." Under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, a fact admitted need not be proved. 12.13. In Narender Singh vs. Mala Ram and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 198, the controversy was with regard to the improper rejection of nomination papers and the filing of an Election Petition by the candidate whose nomination papers were improperly rejected …
-
… [(2009) 2</sup> SCC 75] <span id="page-14-1"></span><sup>10 [(2008) 15</sup> SCC 673] <span id="page-14-2"></span><sup>11 [(2009) 5</sup> SCC 713] Nusli Neville Wadia's case<sup>8</sup> and the word 'admission' employed the National Insurance CO. Ltd. case<sup>9</sup> a reference to Sections 17, 18 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act would not be inappropriate. A conjoint reading of the said provision would reveal that 'statements' by a party to proceedings are admissions and facts admitted need not be proved. 18. We referred to the said provisions and decisions only to stress upon the point that the appellants …
Questions about Section 58
What have the courts held on Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly (07 Mar 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: IEA 58 facts admitted in pleadings need not be proved; a categorical admission cannot be resiled from by later amendment (Gautam Sarup). Not IEA 17. Do not invent CPC O6 R17. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 1999 to 2017.
How do I find court cases under Section 58 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 58, section 58 IEA, section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly (07 Mar 2008).
What should I read with Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 53 (Facts admitted need not be proved), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 58, 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.