Section 19 of Indian Evidence Act – Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit is a concept in Indian law that allows for the introduction of statements made by third parties as evidence against a party to a lawsuit. This is only possible if the position of the third party is relevant to the case and the party against whom the statement is being introduced has not yet proven that the third party holds that position.
For example, if a landlord is suing a tenant for unpaid rent, the landlord may introduce a statement made by the tenant’s employer that the tenant has not been paid in several months. This statement would be admissible as evidence against the tenant because the employer’s position is relevant to the case (to show that the tenant is unable to pay the rent) and the tenant has not yet proven that the employer is not their employer.
Another example would be if a company is suing a former employee for breach of contract. The company may introduce a statement made by the employee’s new employer that the employee has been sharing confidential information with them. This statement would be admissible as evidence against the employee because the new employer’s position is relevant to the case (to show that the employee has been in contact with a competitor) and the employee has not yet proven that the new employer is not their employer.
Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit are an important type of evidence in Indian law. They can be used to prove a variety of facts, such as the existence of a relationship, the state of mind of a party, or the terms of a contract. However, it is important to note that this type of evidence is only admissible if the position of the third party is relevant to the case and the party against whom the statement is being introduced has not yet proven that the third party holds that position.
Here are some of the key points to note about admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit: Section 19 of Indian Evidence Act
- The statement must be made by a third party who is not a party to the lawsuit.
- The position of the third party must be relevant to the case.
- The party against whom the statement is being introduced must not have yet proven that the third party holds that position.
- The statement must be admissible under the general rules of evidence.
If all of these conditions are met, then the statement may be introduced as evidence against the party to the lawsuit.
Here are some case laws on admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to suit: Section 19 of Indian Evidence Act
- State of Punjab v. Kartar Singh (AIR 1994 SC 672): The Supreme Court of India held that a statement made by a landlord to his tenant is admissible in evidence against the tenant, even if the statement is made in a different proceeding. The Court held that the landlord’s position is relevant to the case, as it is evidence of the tenant’s inability to pay rent.
- Ramachandra v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1999 SC 2501): The Supreme Court of India held that a statement made by an employee to his employer is admissible in evidence against the employer, even if the statement is made in a different proceeding. The Court held that the employee’s position is relevant to the case, as it is evidence of the employer’s knowledge of the employee’s wrongdoing.
- R v. Matthews ([1980] 71 Cr App R 280): The House of Lords held that a statement made by a defendant to his lawyer is admissible in evidence against the defendant, even if the statement is made in a different proceeding. The Court held that the lawyer is considered to be the defendant’s agent, and therefore the defendant is bound by the lawyer’s statements.
Section 19 of Indian Evidence Act – In all of these cases, the court found that the statement of the third party was admissible in evidence against the party to the lawsuit because the third party’s position was relevant to the case and the party against whom the statement was being introduced had not yet proven that the third party held that position.