Section 18 of IEA : Section 18: Admission by party to proceeding or his agent.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Ravi and Suresh are involved in a property dispute over a piece of land. During the court proceedings, Ravi's lawyer presents a letter written by Suresh to his friend, in which Suresh admits that the land actually belongs to Ravi. Since Suresh is a party to the proceeding and the letter is an admission made by him, the court considers this letter as evidence under Section 18 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Example 2:

Meena is suing a company for breach of contract. During the trial, Meena's agent, who was authorized to negotiate the contract on her behalf, testifies that the company had agreed to certain terms that were not fulfilled. The court accepts the agent's testimony as an admission because the agent was expressly authorized by Meena to make statements on her behalf.

Example 3:

A trust is suing a tenant for unpaid rent. The tenant claims that he had an agreement with the previous trustee that allowed him to pay a lower rent. The court examines a written statement made by the previous trustee, who had a proprietary interest in the trust property at the time, confirming the tenant's claim. Since the statement was made while the trustee held his position, it is considered an admission under Section 18.

Example 4:

An insurance company is in a legal battle with a policyholder over a claim. The policyholder's brother, who has a financial interest in the claim, makes a statement to the court that the policyholder had indeed suffered the loss claimed. Since the brother has a pecuniary interest in the subject matter and made the statement in that capacity, the court treats it as an admission.

Example 5:

A company is being sued for environmental damage. During the proceedings, a former employee of the company, who was responsible for environmental compliance, testifies that the company had ignored several environmental regulations. The court considers this testimony as an admission because the employee had derived his interest in the subject matter from his role in the company and made the statement while he was still employed.