সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Admission-Stray sentences in cross examination. Stray sentences of cross-examination do not constitute admission.
Parameshwari Bai v. Muthojirao Scindia, AIR 1981 Kant 40 DB.
Admissions in pleading and judicial admissions.-Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleading or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before 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 constituted a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions which are receiveable at the trial as evidence are by themselves not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.
Nagindas Ramdas v. Calpatram Inchharam alias Brijram, AIR 1974 SC 242.
Admission in pleadings. The admission in pleading stands on a higher footing.
Rama Nand Rai v. Dy. Dir. of Consolidation, 1977 Revenue Decisions 419: AIR 1978 NOC 100 (All).
Admission-Evidentiary value. Admission, unless explained, furnishes the best evidence.
Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import, AIR 1981 SC 2084.
Admission-Meaning of - The word "admission" has a technical meaning in law. It has been defined in Section 17 of the Evidence Act as a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. The compromise does not show that the appellants admitted that their water was not used to flow towards Plot No. 403 and well of the respondents. On the other hand the compromise shows that in future the appellants could not flow water towards Plot No. 403. Therefore, precisely speaking there is no admission of the appellants to show that there was no flow of the water of the plaintiff's house towards Plot No. 403 and the will of the respondent.
Jag Narain v. Ram Dularay, AIR 1979 All 71.
Adnission in documents. Admission of the documents means admission of facts contained in the document. No provision of law makes the admissions admissible against a person other than the person making them, unless such person can be said to be bound by the admission.
Sita Ram v. Satanu Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 1697: 1966 Mah LJ 881: (1966) 1 SCWR 974: 68 Bom LR 489.
To make an admission a confession. To make an admission a confession, it must amount to a clear acknowledgement of guilt. A confession must relate to the particular crime with which the accused is charged. Any admission which is not connected with any of the ingredients of offence charged would not amount to a confession.
Gadhapurni v. State, 1980 Cri LJ 188 DB.
Admission and estoppel. Admission is a piece of evidence but estoppel creates a title. The Supreme Court further observed-Ex 2 was relied on as an admission and not as an estoppel. We agree with the High Court that Ex 2 affords satisfactory evidence to prove the first defendant's title to the suit properties. It further proves the alienation effected by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs.
Dattatraya v. Rang Nath, AIR 1971 SC 2548: 1970 SCD 366: (1971) 1 Civ App J 328 (SC).
Admission in favour of person making. Surpeme Court observed- Reliance was placed by the District Judge on the counterfoil where the plaintiff- landlord tried to make out a case of monthly tenancy but the entry in counter- foil being an admission in his own favour was not admissible against the appellant.
Idandas v. Anant Ramchandra, AIR 1982 SC 127.
No distinction between admission in pleading and other admission of the party. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, makes no distinction between an admission made by a party in a pleading and other admissions. Under the Indian law no 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.
Basant Singh v. Janki Singh, AIR 1967 SC 341.
Admission of execution. Where a party only admits the signature and also explains the circumstances which led to his signing the document without knowing its contents it cannot be said that the party has admitted its execution. Execution implies conscious execution and knowledge of its contents. There is a catena of authorities for the proposition that where a party merely admits the thumb impression or his signature on a document but does not admit that he executed the document in the sense that he subscribed to the contents thereof, it can be said that the party has admitted the execution.
Brij Mohan v. Amarnath, AIR 1980 J & K 54 DB.
Admissions not conclusive proof-Adverse inference can be drawn. The law by no means regards admissions as conclusive proof of the matters admitted. This is because to a Court of law admissions are but statements which do not more than suggest an inference as to some fact or facts in issue. It is, there- fore, important that the Court should examine any given admission inside out to see if it suggest any clear inference on the fact in issue against the party making it. For a Court to draw an adverse inference against a party on the basis of what he is stated to have admitted, the admission must be unequivocal. It must also be comprehensive.
M. M. Chetty v. C. Coomarswamy Naidu & Sons, AIR 1980 Mad 212.
Truncated admissions. Where a party's admission falls short of the totality of the requisite evidence needed for legal proof of fact in issue such a an admission would be only a truncated admission. It follows that in such a case it cannot support a valid judicial determination, unless it be that the Court is in a position to find other evidence before it to make up for the deficiencies in the admission.
M. M. Chetty v. C. Coomarswamy Naidu & Sons, AIR 1980 Mad 212.
Admission-Propio vigore substantive evidence. It is well-settled that a party's admission as defined in Sections 17 to 20 fulfilling the requirements of Section 21, Evidence Act, is substantive evidence proprio vigore. An admission, if clearly and unequivocally made, is the best evidence against the party making it and though not conclusive, shifts the onus on to the maker on the principle that "what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so and until the presumption was rebutted the fact admitted must be taken to be estalished.
Thiru John v. Returning Officer, AIR 1977 SC 1724: (1977) 3 SCC:40.
Deliberate ante litem admissions. In Thiru John's case the Supreme Court observed that in the instant case, here, there are a number of clear admissions in prior declarations precisely and deliberately made in solemn documents by Shri John. These admissions were made ante litem motam during the decade preceding the election in question. These admissions were entitled to great weight. They had shifted the burden on the appellant (Shri John) to show that they were incorrect.
Thiru John v. Returning Officer, AIR 1977 SC 1724: (1977) 2 SCWR 295.
Party's amission on law point.-Party's admission on law point is held not binding on it.
Dr. Het Ram Kalia v. Himanchal Pradesh University, AIR 1977 NOC (HP) 246: ILR 1977 HP 17.
Self-serving statement in previous proceedings. Self-serving statement in previous proceedings cannot be used as substantive evidence against that party in subsequent proceedings.
Krishnawati v. Hansraj, AIR 1974 SC 280: (1974) 1 SCC 289.
Proving of Admission needs no confrontation. The object of Section 145 of the Evidence Act is to give the witness a chance of explaining the dis- crepancy or inconsistency and to clear up the broad point of ambiguity or dispute but this procedure is not followed in regard to the admission in view of Sections 17 and 21 of the Evidence Act. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves though they are not conclusive proof of matters admitted. In Bharat Singh v. Mst. Bhagirathi, AIR 1966 SC 405, has been held that the admissions duly proved are admissible in evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness-box or not and whether such party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statements in case it made a statement contrary to those admissions. The purpose of contradicting the witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is quite different from the purpose of proving the admission.
Arjun Mahato v. Monda Mahatain, AIR 1971 Pat 215 DB.
What weight to be attached to a admission is different from its admis- sibility. The Supreme Court observed that what weight is to be attached to an admission made by a party is a matter different from its use as admissible evidence.
Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi, AIR 1966 SC 405: 1966 SCD 153: (1966) 1 SCWR 222: (1966) 2 SCJ 53.
Admission though not conclusive yet decisive. The Division Bench relying on Supreme Court case reported in Narayan Bhagwant Rao v. Gopal Vinayak, reported in AIR 1960 SC 100, observed that undoubtedly, the admission is the best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon and though it is not conclusive, yet it would be decisive of the matter unless it were successfully withdrawn or proved to be erroneous.
B. S. B. Religious Trust v. H. Das, AIR 1971 Pat 363 DB.
Admission by a person in joint character. When several persons are jointly interested in the subject-matter of the suit, an admission of any one of them is receivable against him and fellows, whether they be all jointly suing or be sued, provided the admission related to the subject-matter in dispute and is made by the declarant in his character of a person jointly interested with the party against whom the evidence is tendered. Vide, Tikoo Ram v. Jhabar, ILR (1960) 10 Raj 6: AIR 1961 Raj 81.
Bhura v. Bahadur Singh, AIR 1976 Raj 249: 1976 Raj LW 212: 1976 Ren CR 546: 1976 WLN 44.
Party's Admission-Proved-Need not to be confronted. The Supreme Court observed-
It has been held by this Court in Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi, (1966) (19 1 SCR 606: AIR 1966 SC 405, that an admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted and that admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irres- pective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether that party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statements in case it made a statement contrary to those admissions. The view taken in Bhargava v. Bhawani Shankar, AIR 1957 All 1, FB, has been noticed.
Union of India v. Moksh Builders & Financiers, AIR 1977 SC 409: (1977) 1 SCC 60: 1977 SCC (Tax) 132: (1977) 1 SCWR 358: (1977) 9 Lawyer 156.
Admission in previous proceedings. In order to bind a party by his admission in previous proceedings, the admission must be clear, precise and unambiguous.
Ram Prasad v. Kalyani, AIR 1973 Raj 208: 1972 Raj LW 522.
Cases relied on-
Nagubai Ammal v. Shama Rao, AIR 1956 SC 593: 1956 SCR 451: C. Koteshwara Rao v. C. Subba Rao, AIR 1971 SC 1542: 1970 SCD 380.
Admission by party-Value of. It is no doubt true that admission are not conclusive but what a party himself admits to be the true state of affairs may reasonably be presumed to be so unless the admission is satisfactorily explained or successfully withdrawn.
S. T. Thimmappa v S.L. Prasad, AIR 1978 Kant 25 (DB).
Admission-Best available support for adversary. An admission in pleading is certainly available to be used. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the admission contained in a pleading in a former litigation, it is indeed an admission in the true sense is certainly to be used for all purposes and it cannot be kept out by saying that it was an admission in a former litigation and was meant for that proceeding alone and cannot be taken to be an admission binding in any other suit or for all times to come. Such a distinction is not open in law to be made. If it is an admission. it is so and is certainly an admission for all times to come. Unless explained away properly, an admission is the best available support for the adversary, vide N. B. Gosavi v. G. V. Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100.
Biswanath Rana v. Laxman, AIR 1971 Ori 267.
Admission of signature is not the admission of the contents of documents.- The execution of a document implies intelligent and conscious appreciation of the contents thereof and the facts connected therewith; and where the defendants admitted only that he had put his signature in a blank piece of paper, which, he alleged, had possibly been utilised for fabricating Ex A. 1, it cannot be regarded as his having admitted the execution of the document.
Ethirajulu Naidu v. K. R. C. Chettiar, AIR 1975 Mad 333 (DB).
Admission-Several persons interested in the subject-matter-Admission by one of them-Relevancy. The value of admission must depend upon the circumstances in which they are made and possible motives for incorrect state- ment by interested persons should not be ignored. Where several persons are jointly interested in the subject-matter of the suit the general rule is that the admission of any one of these persons is receivable against himself and follows, whether they be all jointly suing or sued or whether an action be brought in favour of or against one or more of them separately provided the admission relate to the subject-matter in dispute and be made by the declarant in his character of a person jointly interested with the party against whom the evidence is tendered.
Ambika Devi v. Bal Mukund Pandey, AIR 1981 Pat 111 (DB).
Admission by father when not binding upon son. Section 18 of the Evi- dence Act no doubt provides that statements made by persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissible if the are made during the circumstances of the interest of the per- sons making the statements. Held, but the respondents (sons) cannot be bound by the admission made by their father for they are not claiming the suit property through him but are claiming the same as coparceners by virtue of their birth in the joint family to which the suit property belonged.
Avatar Singh v. Th. Atma Singh, AIR 1982 J & K 141 (DB): 1982 Srinagar LJ 247: 1982 Kash LJ 263.
Admission-Binding-Unless explained. An admission is not conclusive but unless it is explained suitably by a party who has made such an admission or who is bound by such an admission, it will have to be used against him.
Veerbasavaradhya v. Devotees of Lingadaqudi Mutt, AIR 1973 Mys 280; Radha Nath Singh v. Ram Prasad Agrawalla, AIR 1978 NOC 228 (Pat).
Value of admission. It is will-settled that the effect of an alleged admis- sion depends upon the circumstances in which it was made.
P. Ex. S. Co-op. T. S. F. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 1121: 1974 MPLJ 629.
Privity of title or of obligation. It is not by virtue of a person's relation- ship to the litigation that the admission of one can be used against the other, It must be as used because of some privity of title or obligation. In order to utilise the statement of defendents 6 to 8 against defendents 1 to 3, the plaintiff has to establish that they were all persons jointly interest in the dis- puted property, and the admission of defendents 6 to 8 would affect their own if they say that the plaintiff had been adopted away and did not continue to be the son of defendant No. 3. The general rule is that an admission can only be taken in evidence against the party making it and not against any other party. The statment in defence by one defendant cannot be read in evi- dence either for or against his co-defendant unless they have joint interest.
Jagbandhu v. Bhagu, AIR 1974 Ori 120 (DB): (1973) 1 Cut WR 809.
Admission made by vendor after sale not binding on vendee. The admission of vendor after sale of the property in favour of the third person relating to the sold property is not binding upon the vendee.
Radhey Shyam v. Smt. Prem Kanta, 1982 WLN 81 (Raj): AIR 1982 NOC 244 (Raj).
Admission in correction of paper case. The correction of papers case is mainly decided on the basis of possession. The order passed in correction of papers case is certainly not binding in regular suit.
But any admission made in correction of papers case is admissible on the question of possession. Sahdeo v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1980 All 408.
Admission in Mutation cases. Where in a particular case an admission or consent is in relation to possession at the time of the compromise, that admission or consent is admissible even in the title proceeding, when a Court is called upon to decide or adjudicate the title of the parties, it regular can take into consideration. The fact that in mutation proceedings, one party had admitted or consented in respect of their possession.
Rajpati v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1979 All WC 302: 1979 All LJ 640; Algu v. Dy. Director of or of Cansolidation, 1979 All WC 299.
Person making admission in his pleading. A person making any admis- sion in his pleading cannot take an advantage of the same.
Suraj Nath v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Cal 203 (DB).
Admission by counsel of accused-Binding effect. The sworn testimony of the counsel for the accused, related to something which happened in con- nection with the proceedings in Court with respect to thumb-impression of P. W. can be relied upon and is binding on the accused. Raghunath v. State of U. P., AIR 1973 SC 1100.
Admission by Co-defendant. Co-defendant admitted plaintiff's claim in his written statement. He does not appear in witness-box so that the contesting defendant can get opportunity to crose-examine him on this point.
Such admission, held not binding on contesting defendant. Braham Raj Singh v. Braham Raj Devi, AIR 1982 HP 57: ILR (1981) HP 272: 1931 Sim LC 361.
Admission of execution-Mere putting signature on blank paper. Precedent relied on- Thakur Lal v Ram Adhar, 1968 All LJ 480.
Mere admission of putting signature or thumb-impression mark on a blank sheet of paper does not amount to an admission of execution.
Birbal Singh v. Harphool Khan, AIR 1976 All 23.
Admission-Compromise by counsel for on behalf of his client.-Division Bench observed-
The counsel for the plaintiff in his statement did aot prescribe any special oath nor any special form of the oath but merely offered the defendant-appel- lant to take oath and make statement on the two crucial points in issue in a particular Gurudwara. He was not required to swear by the Gurudwara or by Guru Granth Sahib or in any other special manner. In these circumstances it appears to us that the compromise arrived at between the counsel for the plaintiff on behalf of his client and the defendant-appellant would be covered by Section 20 of the Evidence Act and the plaintiff would be bound by the statement made by the defendant on the two crucial issues if the same is found to have been made strictly in accordance with the terms offered by him.
Thakur Singh v. Inderjit Singh, AIR 1976 P & H 287 (DB): 1978 Pun LR 801: 1976 CurLJ (Civ) 409: 1976 Rev LR 567.
Admission by person referred to by party to suit. From the facts of the instant case, it would be seen that Pt. Satya Narain was expressly empowered to make his own enquiries into the dispute and then to make his statement. The Court had to pass the judgment in accordance with such statement. The High Court observed: It seems to me that it is hard to describe it a case to which Section 20 of the Evidence Act can be said to be applicable. But on a true construction of the application (Paper No. 33-C) it has to be held that Sri Misra was appointed the sole arbitrator by the parties. The so-called statement (Paper No. 39-B) was really in the nature of an award. In the circumstances of the case it can be said that the Courts below have mis- directed themselves in passing the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by treating the said statement (Paper No. 39-B) as one under Section 20 of the Evidence Act.
Ramji Lal v. Ramsanehi Lal, AIR 1978 All 351.
Admission-Earlier statement of a witness party to the proceedings.- Where the witness is a party to the proceedings, the earlier statement to which his attention is drawn, and which if admitted or otherwise proved may amount to an admission. The difference between what follows in such circumstances if the witness himself is a party to the proceedings and where he is not a party requires to be kept sharply differentiated. The purpose of contradicting the witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is very much different from the purpose of the proving the admission. Admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted while a previous statement used to be contradict a witness does not become substantive evidence and merely serves the purpose of throw- ing doubt on the veracity of the witness. Vide, Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi, (1966) 1 SCR 606 AIR 1966 SC 405.
B. S. Vidhyapith, Bangalore v. G. Parthasarathy, AIR 1977 Kant 113: (1977) 1 Kant LJ ant LJ 87: ILR (1977) 1 Kant 275.
Admission Statement of winess being agent of landlord. In the present case the petitioner tenant by alleging that Ex. R. 27 is the act of an agent of the landlord implying thereby that Ex. R. 27 is attributable to the landlord as his own statement, the petitioner has referred to and relied upon Ex. R. 27 as a piece of substantive evidence. Even assuring as the Court below assumed, that it was used in cross-examination only for the purpose of shaking. The credit of P. W. 3 it cannot be said that Ex. B. 27 was only to that purpose alone in the case. In either event, it is to be held that it was open to the petitioner to seek to prove the said document in accordance with or in a manner recognised by law. For Ex, R. 27 to be a piece of substantive evidence in the case against the landlord, the petitioner has not only to prove that Ex. R. 27 was a document in the writing of R.W. 3 but also has to establish further that R.W. 27 was an agent and authorised by the landlord and that Ex. R. 27 came into existence in the course and exercise of such authority by the said R. W. 3.
B. S. Vidyapith, Bangalre v. G. Parthasarathy, ILR (1977) 1 Kant 275: AIR 1977 Kant 113: (1977) 1 Kant LJ 87.
Admission in judgment. Normally a statement in judgment of a Court must be accepted to be true unless if properly challenged. Even mere cor- poration of a ground in the memorandum of an appeal had been held not to constitute a sufficient challenge to the correctness of such a statement.
Nrusinghanath v. Banmali, AIR 1970 Ori 218.
Admissions are substantive evidence but not conclusive. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves in view of Sections 17 and 21 of the Evidence Act though they are not conclusive proof of the matter admitted. The Supreme Court has expressed its opinion in Bharat Singh's case, (1966) 1 SCR 606, that the admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in a witness- box or not or whether the party when appearing that witness was confronted with those statements in case, it made a statement contrary to those admissions. The purpose of contradicting the witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is very much different from the purpose of throwing dout on the veracity of the witness. What weight is to be attached to an admission made by a party is a matter different from its use as admissible evidence. H. S. Abbas v. Balaji, AIR 1976 Bom. 219.
Distinction between admission of a party and of a witness. There is a cardinal distinction between a party who is the author of a prior statement and a witness who is examined and is sought to be discredited by use of his prior statement. In the former case an admission by a party is substantive evidence if it fulfills the requirements of Section 21 of the Evidence Act, in the latter case a prior statement is used to discredit the credibility of the witness and does not become substantive evidence. In the former case there is no necessary requirement of the statement containing the admission having to be put to the party because it is evidence proprio vigore in the latter case the Court cannot be invited to disbelieve a witness on the strength of a prior contradictory statement unless it has been put to him as required by Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
Biswanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1974 SC 117: 1974 Pat LJR 437: 1974 SCD 134: (1974) 1 SCJ 554.
Admission-Its proof-And object of Section 145. The purpose of con- tradicting the witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is very much different from the purpose of proving the admission.
Sita Ram v. Ram Chandra, AIR 1977 SC 1712: (1977) 2 SCC 49: (1977) 2 SCR 671.
Admission regarding nature of possession. The admission incorporated in Exhibit 54, the declaration given by the defendant, is being relied upon by the plaintiffs to show that the defendant was in permissive possession of the property. As held by the Supreme Court in Bharat Singh v. Mst. Bhagi Rathi, AIR 1966 SC 405, the admission duly are admissible in evidence. In the pre- sent case the said ahmission has been culy proved and the evidence in this behalf adduced by the plaintiff has been rightly accepted by the trial Court.
Madho v. Yeshwant, AIR 1974 Bom 12: 1973 Mah LJ 771: ILR (1974) Bom 752.
Admissibility of admissions. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Bharat Singh v. Mst. Bhagirathi, AIR 1966 SC 405 that the admissions duly proved are admissible in evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether such party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statements in case it made contrary to those admissions.
Arjun Mahto v. Monda Mahatain, AIR 1971 Pat 215 (DB).
Value of Admission. Law is that an admission is a substantive piece of evidence. This was stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Singh v. Mst. Bhagirathi reported in AIR 1968 SC 405 at page 410. It has been stated in that case that an admission is substantive evidence even though the parties are not confronted with such statement, but what weight should be attached to it is a different matter. Of course, there is a dissenting note in the judgment of Sita Ram v. Ram Chandra, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1712. That case is distinguishable because in that case a certified copy of a state- ment of the witness was sought to be used as his admission. In that view of the matter it has been stated in that case that an admission cannot be admitted in evidence unless the previous statements be made first put to him and liberty is given to him to explain the same. It may be pointed out that in that case of Sita Ram, the Supreme Court decisions reported in AIR 1977 SC 409 and in AIR 1974 SC 117 were not considered. It has been clearly stated in those cases that when there is an admission it is not necessary to cofront the person concerned with his previous statement. Mahabir Saha v. Haripad Saha, AIR 1982 Cal 353 (DB).
Admissiblity of self-serving admissions. A self-serving admission in evidence, unless it comes within any exceptions under Section 21 of the Evidence Act, is not admissible in evidence.
Jag Bandhu v. Bhagu, AIR 1974 Ori 120: (1973) 1 Cut WR 809: ILR (1973) Cut 553.
Admission binding unless explained-Precedents relied on-
(1) AIR 1936 PC 264.
(2) AIR 1960 SC 335.
(3) AIR 1917 PC 169.
(4) AIR 1960 SC 100.
Admission is binding upon the person making it unless sufficiently explained.
Radh Nath Singh v. Ram Prasad Agrawala, AIR 1978 NOC 228 DB (Pat).
Admission regarding seeking apology in a letter-Nature of document.-The letter was written during the period when the compromise talks were going on in respect of the case pending under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, at a time when the parties agreed that no evidence would be given regarding it. That being so, the case will be covered by the second condi- tion laid down in Section 23 of the Evidence Act and as such the husband could claim privilege regarding the same. It has been ruled in a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shibcharan l'as v. Firm Gulab Chand Chhotey Lal, AIR 1936 All 15, that where negotiations were being conducted with a view to a settlement, it should be held that those negotiations were so conducted without prejudice.
Surjit Kaur v. Gurucharan Singh, AIR 1973 P & H 18: 1974 Pun LR 726.
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
