SUPREME COURT REITERATES FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR CONSTITUTING AN ‘ADMISSION’ OF A FACT UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT 1872

In a recent case of Raja Gounder and Ors. Vs. M. Sengodan and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 600 of 2024 arising out of SLP (C) No. 13486 of 2007, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice S.V.N. Bhatt passed a Judgment dated 19-01-2024 and made observations regarding what constitutes an ‘admission’ of a fact under the Indian Evidence Act 1872.

Facts

i) In the present case, upon the demise of one, M.S. Muthusamy Gounder (Propositus), the below mentioned Plaintiffs filed a Suit bearing S. No. 357 of 1985 before Ld. Court of Subordinate Judge, Sankari, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu (Trial Court):

(i) Plaintiff No. 1- M. Sengodan (Son of Ramayee and Propositus),

(ii) Plaintiff No. 2- Ramayee (Wife of Propositus).

2) The Suit was filed against the below mentioned Defendants No. 1-2:

i) Defendant No. 1- Subramani (Son of Ammasi and Propositus),

ii) Defendant No. 2- Ammasi Ammal (Wife of Propositus) and

3) The Plaintiffs sought for partition and separate possession of Suit Properties consisting of agricultural land in Amani, Kliyanoor, Agraharam and Pallipayam villages of Tiruchengode Taluk, Tamil Nadu.

4) The Plaintiffs claimed that a coparcenary / joint Hindu family existed and that the Suit Properties were joint family / ancestral properties, which the Plaintiffs had inherited from the Propositus.

5) The Plaintiffs, vide Suit for Partition, sought partition of the Suit Properties into three equal shares, one each for Plaintiffs 1-2 and one notional share for the Propositus.

6) Later, upon an Application for Impleadment, the below mentioned Appellants-Defendants were impleaded as Defendants No. 3-5 in the said Suit:

i) Defendant No. 3- Raja Gounder (Son of Chinnammal and Propositus),

ii) Defendant No. 4- Chinnammal (Wife of Propositus),

iii) Defendant No. 5- Gangammal (Daughter of Chinnammal and Propositus)

7) The Defendants No. 1-2 denied the factum of marriage between the Propositus and the Plaintiff No. 2 and as a result, denied the rights of Plaintiffs to the Suit Properties.

8) The Defendants No. 3-5 claimed that the Defendants No. 3 and 5 are the Son and Daughter respectively of the Defendant No. 4 and the Propositus and that upon his demise, the Defendants No. 3-5 had inherited the Suit Properties. Hence, the partition of Suit Properties ought to be done amongst all the legal heirs of the Propositus.

9) The Trial Court, vide Order dated 21-01-1991, observed as follows:

10) The Defendant No. 2- Ammasi Ammal is admittedly the first legally wedded wife of the Propositus. Hence, the Defendant No. 1- Subramani (Son of Ammasi and Propositus) would be the legal coparcener.

11) The Plaintiff No. 2- Ramayee had not produced any evidence to prove the factum of her marriage with the Propositus. Thus, the Plaintiff No. 1- M. Sengodan (Son of Ramayee) could not be granted the status of coparcener.

12) The Defendant No. 4- Chinnammal had not produced any evidence to prove the factum of her marriage with the Propositus. Therefore, the Defendant No. 3- Raja Gounder and the Defendant No. 5- Gangammal (Children of Chinnammal) could not be granted the status of coparcener.

13) Aggrieved by the Trial Court Order dated 21-01-1991, the Defendant No. 3- Raja Gounder, the Defendant No. 4- Chinnammal and the Defendant No. 5- Gangammal filed an Appeal in AS / 929 / 1991 before the Hon’ble Madras High Court against the Plaintiff No. 1- M. Sengodan, the Plaintiff No. 2- Ramayee, the Defendant No. 1- Subramani and the Defendant No. 2- Ammasi Ammal.

14) Parallelly, the Plaintiff No. 1- M. Sengodan and the Plaintiff No. 2- Ramayee also filed an Appeal in AS / 394 / 2019 before the Madras High Court.

15) The High Court, vide Common Order dated 26-09-2006, upheld the Trial Court Order dated 21-01-1991.

Supreme Court Observations

Aggrieved by the High Court Order dated 26-09-2006, the Defendant No. 3- Raja Gounder, the Defendant No. 4- Chinnammal and the Defendant No. 5- Gangammal filed an SLP (C) No. 13486 of 2007 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the Plaintiff No. 1- M. Sengodan, the Plaintiff No. 2- Ramayee, the Defendant No. 1- Subramani and the Defendant No. 2- Ammasi Ammal.

The Apex Court registered the case as Civil Appeal No. 600 of 2024 and vide, Order dated 19-01-2024, made the following observations:

i) That the Defendant No. 3- Raja Gounder, the Defendant No. 5- Gangammal and the Plaintiff No. 1- M. Sengodan had produced evidence of their status as children of the Propositus by way of an admission by the Propositus in the form of a substantive piece of evidence i.e. a Registered Mortgage Deed dated 01-11-1976 and by way of corroborative evidence of electoral rolls to establish that the Propositus treats them as his children.

ii) That as per various precedents of the Supreme Court, the following ingredients would constitute an ‘admission’ of a fact:

a) “Admission is a conscious and deliberate act and not something that could be inferred.

b) An admission could be a positive act of acknowledgement or confession.

c) To constitute an admission, one of the requirements is a voluntary acknowledgement through a statement of the existence of certain facts during the judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, which conclude as true or valid the allegations made in the proceedings or in the notice.

d) The formal act of acknowledgement during the proceedings waives or dispenses with the production of evidence by the contesting party.

e) The admission concedes, for the purpose of litigation, the proposition of fact claimed by the opponents as true.

f) An admission is also the best evidence the opposite party can rely upon, and though inconclusive, is decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous by the other side.”

iii) That as per Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872[1] (Admission defined) read with Section 18 of the Evidence Act[2] (Admission by party to proceeding or his agent), admission of a fact can be made by (i) a party to a proceeding, (ii) his agent, (iii) a suitor in a representative character, (iv) a party in a trusted subject matter and (v) a person from whom interest is derived.

iv) That as per the Registered Mortgage Deed dated 01-11-1976 produced by the Defendants No. 3-5, the said Document was executed by the Propositus in favor of a third party, wherein it was mentioned that the Mortgage of one of the Suit Properties was being done by the Propositus on behalf of himself and the Defendants No. 1 and 3 and the Plaintiff No. 1, amongst others. Thus, the Registered Mortgage Deed dated 01-11-1976 showed that the Propositus treated the Defendants No. 1 and 3 and the Plaintiff No. 1 as his Sons.

v) Additionally, the voter lists also showed the names of the Propositus and his Sons.

vi) Thus, applying the principles of ‘admission’ under Section 18 of the Evidence Act, it was established that the Propositus made a statement describing the Defendant No. 3 and the Plaintiff No. 1 as his Sons, thereby, constituting an admission by record.

vii) The Bench further held that the status derived through an admission in the aforesaid Documents vis-à-vis the Defendant No. 3- Son can also be extended as a natural corollary to the Defendant No. 5, as a child/Daughter of the Propositus. “This is an inescapable consequential conclusion which the Court has to record”.

Conclusion

Thus, based on the aforesaid observations, the Apex Court held that the Defendants No. 3 and 5 and the Plaintiff No. 1 would also be entitled to an equal share in the notionally partitioned share of the Propositus in the Suit Properties in the same manner as the Defendant No. 1 is entitled, all being the children of the Propositus. However, the Bench held that the Plaintiff No. 2 and the Defendant No. 4 would not be entitled to a share in the Suit Properties for want of evidence of factum of their respective marriages with the Propositus. As a result, the Appeal filed by the Defendants No. 3 and 5 were allowed and the High Court Order dated 26-09-2006 and the Trial Court Order dated 21-01-1991 were set aside.

Harini Daliparthy

Senior Associate

The Indian Lawyer

 

[1] Section 17 of the Evidence Act: Admission defined

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.

[2] Section 18 of the Evidence Act: Admission by party to proceeding or his agent

Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorised by him to make them, are admissions.

by suitor in representative character.––Statements made by parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character.

Statements made by ––

(1) by party interested in subject-matter.––persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested, or

(2) by person from whom interest derived.––persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.