H.G. RAMACHANDRA RAO V.

MASTER SRIKANTHA, AIR 1997 KANT 347

A statement to be used as an admission must be clear, specific and unambiguous and in the own
words of the person making it and has to be proved to be so. It is not an interference drawn by
anybody which should be taken as an admission. An admission to be worthy of being received in
evidence, considered and relied upon, it should firstly be the clear-cut and accurate statement of
that very person in his own works. It has to be proved to be the statement of the person who made
it.
UNION OF INDIA V. MOKSH BUILDERS ETC

Statements in pleadings are admissions against the party making them. He cannot be allowed to
rely upon favourable parts and throw the rest by oral evidence.
SUNDERABAI AND ORS. VS. DEVAJI SHANKAR DESHPANDE

Estoppel is a rule of evidence and the general rule is enacted in section 115 of the Evidence Act,
which lays down that when one person has by his declaration, act or omission caused or permitted
another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief neither he nor his
representative shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his
representative to deny the truth of that thing. This is the rule of estoppel by conduct as distinguished
from an estoppel by record which constitutes the bar of 'res judicata'. The estoppel in this case was
pleaded by the Defendant 1 in the manner following in Paragraph 6 of her written statement:
"The plaintiff's claim is also barred by estoppel as he received Rs. 8,000 as a consideration for
accepting the terms of compromise from the defendant. As the compromise was lawful and as he
induced the defendant to pay Rs. 8,000 on the understanding that Gangabai lost her right to adopt
and he would never raise any dispute, he is estopped from contending that Gangabai had not lost
her right to adopt."
THE COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY VS. NUSSERWANJI RATTANJI MISTRI AND ORS.

Once consented, Government was estopped from enhancing the assessment.

COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BOMBAY AND ORS.

If the resolution can be read as meaning that the grant was of rent-free land, the case would come
strictly within the doctrine of estoppel enunciated in section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. But
even otherwise, that is, if there was merely the holding out of a promise that no rent will be charged
in the future, the Government must be deemed in the circumstances of this case to have bound
themselves to fulfil it.
SECTION 17 OF EVIDENCE ACT

Admission defined.—An admission is a statement, 1[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.
 SECTION 31 OF EVIDENCE ACT

Admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop.—Admissions are not conclusive proof of the
matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained.
SECTION 115 OF EVIDENCE ACT

Estoppel. —When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or
permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he
nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such
person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.