{"id":207748,"date":"1992-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992"},"modified":"2018-05-25T17:51:13","modified_gmt":"2018-05-25T12:21:13","slug":"k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992","title":{"rendered":"K.M. Singh vs Secretary, Association Of Indian … on 21 April, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K.M. Singh vs Secretary, Association Of Indian … on 21 April, 1992<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 1356, \t\t 1992 SCR (2) 630<\/div>\n
Author: Y Dayal<\/div>\n
Bench: Yogeshwar Dayal (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nK.M. SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSECRETARY, ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIESAND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/04\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nYOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)\nBENCH:\nYOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR 1356\t\t  1992 SCR  (2) 630\n 1992 SCC  (3) 129\t  JT 1992 (4)\t 12\n 1992 SCALE  (1)839\n\n\nACT:\n\t\t Indian Evidence Act, 1872:\n  Section  20- Statement made on special oath by  person  -\nEvidentiary value of -Held an admission of the person.\n Code of civil procedure, 1908:\n Suit-Disposal of -By special oath-Validity of:\n Oaths Act, 1969:\nSection 9-Oaths Act, 1873- Repeal of -Whether debars parties\nfrom entering into any contract.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  petitioner in the special Leave petition  filed  a\nsuit for declaring that the resignation tendered by him\t was\ninvoluntary  and  a result of fraud,coercion and  threat  as\nwell as the inducement as alleged in the plaint. During\t the\npendency  of this suit, he filed an application under  Order\n10 Rule 2 Read with Section 151 of the code of Civil  Proce-\ndure  for a direction that if the respondent  officers\tNo.1\nand  2 took a special oath in Gurudwara and  Mandir  respec-\ntively\tto the effect that the resignation of the  plaintiff\nwas  not extracted from him under duress, fear,\t inducement,\nfraud,\tcoercion then that part of the claim might  be\tdis-\nmissed as withdrawn.\n     The  respondent Officers having accepted the  challenge\nthe Additional District Judge appointed a local commissioner\nto administer the oath to the said two persons as desired by\nthe petitioner, and the same having been taken and the court\nduly  informed, the additional District Judge  ordered\tdis-\nmissal of that part of the claim covered by the suit.\n    On\t the   following  day  of  the\tdismissal   of\t the\napplication, the\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t 631\npetitioner filed another application with a prayer to decide\nthe  aforesaid\tissue on merits and evidence  and  that\t the\nrespondents   might not be allowed to take advantage of\t the\nblunder committed by the petitioner in his application,\t and\nfor cancellation of the court's order dismissing the  claim.\nThis application was dismissed by the Trial Judge. The Trial\nCourt took the view that Section 20 of the Evidence Act\t was\napplicable  and\t that the repeal of the Oath  Act,  1873  by\nSection\t 9  of\tthe Oaths Act, 1969 no\twhere  debarred\t the\nparties from entering into any contract.\n     The petitioner filed revision petition against the\t two\norders of the Trial Court but the same was dismissed.\n     In\t the  special  leave petition  of  this\t Court,\t the\npetitioner contended in person that in view of the repeal of\nthe  Oaths Act, 1873 by the Oaths Act, 1969 the\t suit  could\nnot be decided on the basis of special oath.\n     Dismissing the special leave petition, this Court,\n     HELD: 1. The oath was administered as per the petition-\ner's   statement and there is thus no manner of\t doubt\tthat\nthe oath taken by the two persons in  pursuance of the offer\nof  the petitioner amounted to an admission of the  respond-\nent's claim on his part within the meaning of Section 20  of\nthe Evidence Act.[639 D]\n     2.\t The two persons were the nominees of the  plaintiff\nand the statement of the nominees by virtue of Section 20 of\nthe  Evidence  Act would be treated as an admission  of\t the\nparties.[639 D-E]\n     3.\t The Trial Court was right in its view that  Section\n20  of the Evidence Act was applicable in the instant  case,\nand  that the repeal of the Oaths Act, 1873 by Section 9  of\nthe  Oaths Act, 1969 nowhere debarred the plaintiff  parties\nfrom  entering\tinto any contract. The orders of  the  Trial\nCourt  are  therefore unassailable and the  High  Court\t has\nrightly dismissed the revision petition.[635 G-H;639 E]\n     Hirachand Kothari (dead) by Lrs. v. State of  Rajasthan\nand another, [1985] Supp. SCC 17, referred to.\n     J.\t A. Munnuswami Naidu v. K.S.P.\tThyagaraya  Chettiar\nand  another,  AIR  1977 Madras\t 273,  Vasudeva\t Shanbog  v.\nNaraina\t Rai,  1880  ILR 2 Madras 356, Rustam  etc.  v.\t The\nFinancial Commissioner, etc. 1981-83 PLR\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t632\n759,  Mrs.Florabel  Skinner and Others\tv.Jai  Bajrang\tKala\nMandir\tRam  Lila  Mandal, Hissar, AIR 1980 P &\t H  284\t and\nThakur\tSingh & Others v. lnder singh, AIR 1976 P &  H\t287,\napproved.\n     Pacharanda Nanjappa v. Pacharanda Belliappa deceased by\nSeethavva & Others, 1979-29 ILR (Karnataka) 2018 and  Ananda\nChandra Sahu (deceased by L.R.) & Others. v. Ananta  Khuntia\nand other, AIR 1983 Orissa 250, over-ruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Special  Leave  Petition
\n(civil) No.10436 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.91 of the  Delhi
\nHigh Court in C.R. No. 359 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n
     Petitioner-in-person.\n<\/p>\n
     P.P.  Rao Rajindra Dhawan and Jitendra Sharma  for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     YOGESHWAR\tDAYAL, J. This Special Leave Petition  filed
\nby  Sh.\t K.M.  Singh,  who was\ta  Finance  Officer  of\t the
\nAssociation  of\t Indian Universities, AIU  House,  16  Kotla
\nMarg,  New Delhi, is against the Judgment dated 26th  April,
\n1991 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
\nDelhi in Civil Revision No. 359 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the revision petition the petitioner had sought  to
\nset  aside an order dated 30th January, 1989 passed  by\t the
\nlearned\t Additional  District Judge, Delhi,  dismissing\t the
\napplication  filed on his behalf wherein he had\t prayed\t for
\ncancelling  an order dated 14th October, 1988 vide  which  a
\npart  of the claim of the suit of  the\tpetitioner\/plaintiff
\ncovered\t by issue No.1 was ordered to be dismissed as  with-
\ndrawn.\n<\/p>\n
     The  facts\t giving rise to the filing of  the  revision
\npetition  were\tthat the petitioner had filed a\t suit  inter
\nalia  for  declaring that the resignation  tendered  by\t the
\npetitioner\/plaintiff   was  involuntary\t and  a\t result\t  of
\nfraud,coercion\tand  threat  as well as\t the  inducement  as
\nalleged\t in  the  plaint. This plea of\tthe  petitioner\t was
\nsubject matter of issue No.1.\n<\/p>\n
     During the course of the proceedings the petitioner had
\nfiled an application dated 14th October, 1988 purporting  to
\nbe under Order 10
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  633<\/span>
\nRule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil  Procedure
\nIn  this application it was prayed that if Sh.\tAmrik  Singh
\nand  Sh.R.P.  Mahendroo,  officers  of\tdefendant  No.1.took
\nspecial\t oath  in Gurudwara and Mandir respectively  to\t the
\neffect\tthat  the resignation of the plaintiff was  not\t ex-
\ntracted\t from  him on 5th April, 1976  under  duress,  fear,
\ninducement,fraud, coercion then that part of the claim might
\nbe dismissed as withdrawn. The plaintiff\/petitioner in\tfact
\nmade this statement before the Additional District Judge and
\nSh.  Amrik Singh and Sh. Mahendroo accepted the\t said  chal-
\nlenge. They were ready to take special oath in Gurudwara and
\nMandir in terms of the plaintiff’s statement. Consequently a
\nlocal commissioner was appointed by the Additional  District
\nJudge  who administered the oath to the said two person\t the
\nGurudwara and Mandir respectively, as desired by the  plain-
\ntiff\/petitioner\t and  accordingly  the\tlearned\t  Additional
\nDistrict Judge ordered on 14.10.1988 dismissal of that\tpart
\nof  the claim covered by issue No.1 as withdrawn. The  revi-
\nsion petition was directed against this order as well.\n<\/p>\n
     That  on  the  next date i.e. 15th\t October,  1988\t the
\nplaintiff\/petitioner  filed  another  application  with\t the
\nprayer\tto  decide the aforesaid issue No.1  on\t merits\t and
\nevidence  and  the  defendants may not be  allowed  to\ttake
\nadvantage  of the blunder committed by\tthe  plaintiff\/peti-
\ntioner\tand  for cancelling the order  dated  14th  October,
\n1988.  This  application dated 15th October. 1988  was\tdis-
\nmissed by the trial court by order dated 30th January,1989.\n<\/p>\n
     In the reply filed to the Special Leave Petition it  is
\npointed\t out that the suit was fixed on 14th  October,\t1988
\nfor  further evidence of the defendants and in fact  on\t the
\nsaid  date Dr. Amrik Singh was to be cross-examined  by\t the
\npetitioner.  Dr. Amrik Singh as well as Sh. R.P.  Mahendroo,
\nUnder  Secretary of the Association of\tIndian\tUniversities
\nwere  present in the Court and when the suit was called\t the
\npetitioner  filed the application dated 14th  October,\t1988
\nwherein he had offered to abide by the statement made by Dr.
\nAmrik Singh and Sh. R.P. Mahendroo. Whereupon both  Dr.Amrik
\nSingh and Sh. R.P. Mahendroo expressed their willingness and
\nagreed\tto take oath and accepted the offer. The  petitioner
\naffirmed  the same and made a further statement\t before\t the
\ncourt as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Dr.\tAmrik  Singh D.W. present in the  Court\t and
\nR.P.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t     634<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  Mohindru,  officials of the respondents take\tspe-
\ncial  oath  in\t Gurudwara and Mandir  respectively  to\t the
\neffect that the resignation of the plaintiff K.M. Singh\t was
\nnot extracted from him on 5.4.76 under duress, fear, induce-
\nment,  fraud  or coercion then that portion  of\t the  plaint
\nshall be dismissed as withdrawn.”\n<\/p>\n
     The  said offer made by the petitioner was put to\tboth
\nDr. Amrik Singh and Sh. Mahendroo and both of them  accepted
\nthe  same and also made the following statement in Court  as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We  are ready to take special oath in the  Mandir
\nand  Gurudwara as stated by the plaintiff in  his  statement
\nabove.”\n<\/p>\n
     In view of the offer made by the petitioner and accept-
\ned  by\tboth of them the Court thereafter passed  the  order
\nreading as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Present  – Plaintiff in person. Counsel  for\t the
\ndefendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t  One  witness\tof  the deft.  Dr.  Amrik  Singh  is
\npresent\t for  further cross-examination\t by  the  plaintiff.
\nHowever, the plaintiff has filed an application under rule 2
\nread with Section 151 C.P.C.and has stated that if the\tsaid
\nwitness\t of  the  defendant and Shri  R.P.  Mahendroo  Under
\nSecretary  of the defendant No.1 takes special oath  in\t the
\nGurudwara  and\tMandir respectively to the effect  that\t the
\nresignation  of the plaintiff was not extracted from him  on
\n5.4.76\tunder duress, fear, inducement, fraud  or  coercion,
\nthen  that part of the claim of the plaintiff may be  deemed
\nto  be dismissed as withdrawn. The witness and\tofficial  of
\nthe  defendant stated that they are ready to take  the\tsaid
\nspecial\t oath in the Gurudwara and Mandir respectively.\t Let
\nstatements be recorded. Statements have been recorded  sepa-
\nrately.\t The Application filed by the plaintiff stands\tdis-
\nposed  of.  The counsel for the defendant  states  that\t the
\ndefendant  is  ready and willing to pay\t the  admitted\tpart
\nclaim, if any, of the plaintiff.The plaintiff submits direc-
\ntion  to  go alongwith the parties and the  witness  to\t the
\nGurudwara  and Mandir respectively for taking special  oath.
\nThe  plaintiff states that he is ready to bear the  expenses
\nof the local commissioner. Accordingly, I hereby appoint Sh.
\nA.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, as Local Commissioner present in
\nCourt with the direction to visit alongwith the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       635<\/span>
\nparties to Gurudwara Sisganj Sahib and Gauri Shanker  Mandir
\ntoday  at 1 p.m. to take special oath by the  said  persons.
\nHis fee is fixed at Rs.500 to be paid by the plaintiff.\t The
\nplaintiff has paid the fee of the Local Commissioner in\t the
\nCourt.”\n<\/p>\n
     Thereafter\t the  petitioner paid the fee fixed  by\t the
\ntrial Court to the Local Commissioner. The time and date for
\nvisit to Gurudwara and Mandir were fixed by the Court at the
\ninstance  of the petitioner as well as Dr. Amrik  Singh\t and
\nSh.  Mahendroo. As per the directions of the Court the Local
\nCommissioner  in  the company of the petitioner,  Dr.  Amrik
\nSingh and Sh. Mahendroo went to Gurudwara Sisganj as well as
\nGauri  Shanker Mandir both situated in Chandni Chowk,  Delhi
\nwhere  the Local Commissioner administered the oath to\tboth
\nof  them  and their statements were recorded. Both  of\tthem
\ndenied\tthat  the  plaintiffs resignation  was\tobtained  by
\nfraud, coercion, threat and or that he was induced to tender
\nthe  resignation. After the said oath was taken\t the  matter
\nwas  taken  up in the afternoon session by the\ttrial  court
\nwhen  the  Local Commissioner submitted his  report  to\t the
\nCourt whereupon the trial court passed the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Present-As before.\n<\/p>\n
\t The Local Commissioner has filed his report to\t the
\n\t effect\t that he has got the special  oath  adminis-
\n\t tered\tto the witness and official of the   defend-
\n\t ant.  In  view of the statement  of  the  plaintiff
\n\t recorded   earlier  the  suit\tof   the   plaintiff
\n\t with  regard to his resignation  and  consequential
\n\t reinstatement which is covered by Issue No.1 stands
\n\t dismissed as withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
\t   Now\tto  come  up  for  making  payment  by\t the
\n\t defendant of\tthe other claim of the plaintiff, if
\n\t any, on 4.11.1988”
\n     As\t stated earlier, thereafter, on 15th  October,\t1988
\nthe   application  was\tfiled  for  recalling\tthis   order
\ndismissing a part of the suit as withdrawn. The trial court,
\nhowever,  took the view that Section 20 of the Evidence\t Act
\nwas applicable and it also took the view that the repeal  of
\nthe  Oaths Act, 1873 by Section 9 of the Oaths Act, 1969  no
\nwhere debar the parties form entering into any contract.\n<\/p>\n
     High Court, as stated earlier,  dismissed the  revision
\npetition and
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t      636<\/span>
\nagree  with the view of trial court. Before the\t High  Court
\nreliance  was placed on the decision of the  Karnataka\tHigh
\nCourt  in  Pacharanda Nanjappa v. Pacharanda  Belliappa\t de-
\nceased\tby  Seethavva and others,  1979-29  ITR\t (Karnataka)
\n2018.  The High Court, however, did not follow the aforesaid
\ndecision  and preferred to decide the matter in view of\t the
\ndecisions of the Madras High Court in J.A. Munnuswami  Naidu
\nv.  K.S.P.  Thyagaraya\tChettair and  another,\tA.I.R.\t1977
\nMadras\t273;  Vasudeva Ghanbog v. Naraina Pai,\t1880  ILR  2
\nMadras 356 decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  in
\nRustam etc. v. The Financial Commissioner, etc. 1981-83\t PLR
\n759 and Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court
\nin  Mrs.  Florabel Skinner and others v.  Jai  Bajrang\tKala
\nMandir Ram Lila Mandal, Hissar AIR 1980 p & 284.\n<\/p>\n
     Before us also the petitioner, who appeared in  person,
\nsubmitted that in view of the repeal of the Oaths Act,\t1873
\nby the Oaths Act, 1969 the suit could not be decided on\t the
\nbasis  of  special oath. The petitioner also relied  on\t the
\ndecision  of  the Orissa High Court in Ananda  Chandra\tSahu
\n(deceased  by L.R.) and others v. Ananta Khuntia and  others
\nAIR 1983 Orissa 250.\n<\/p>\n
     It may be noticed that both the learned Single Judge of
\nthe  Karnataka\tHigh Court as well as the  learned  Division
\nBench of the Orissa High Court were correct in noticing\t the
\neffect of repeal of the Oaths Act, 1873 by Section 9 of\t the
\nOaths Act, 1969, but it appears the provisions of Section 20
\nof  the Evidence Act were not brought to their\tnotice.\t The
\nlearned\t Judges of the Karnataka High Court and Orissa\tHigh
\nCourt  were right in observing in what cases the  provisions
\nof  the\t Oaths Act, 1873 was to continue to  govern  and  in
\nwhich cases they would cease to apply. But as stated  earli-
\ner,  the provisions of Section 20 of the Evidence  Act\twere
\nnot brought to their notice. Section 20 of the Evidence\t Act
\nreads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
”\t 20  Admissions by persons expressly referred to  by
\n\t party to suit.-Statements mode by persons to whom a
\n\t party to the suit has expressly referred for infor-
\n\t mation\t in  reference to a matter  in\tdispute\t are
\n\t admissions.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tIllustration
\n\t The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B  is
\nsound.\n<\/p>\n
\t  A says to B “Go and ask C ,C knows all about itC’s
\n\t statement is an admission
\nIn Hirachand Kothari (dead) by lrs v. State of Rajasthan and
\nanother (1985)(SUPP) SCC 17, this Court held thus
\n\t  “Section 20 is the second exception to the general
\n\t rule  laid  down in section 18. It deals  with\t one
\n\t class of vicarious admissions. Where a party refers
\n\t to a third person for some information or an  opin-
\n\t ion  are matter in dispute the statements  made  by
\n\t the  third  person  are  receivable  as   admission
\n\t against  the person referring. The word   `informa-
\n\t tion’\toccurring in section 20 is not to be  under-
\n\t stood in the sense that the parties desired to know
\n\t something which none of them had any knowledge\t of.
\n\t Where\tthere  is  a dispute as\t regards  a  certain
\n\t question  and the Court is in need  of\t information
\n\t regarding  the\t truth on that point  any  statement
\n\t which the referee may make is nevertheless informa-
\n\t tion within the purview of section 20 and is admis-
\n\t sible.\t The  reason  behind  admissibility  of\t the
\n\t statement  is that when a party refers\t to  another
\n\t person\t for  a\t statement of his  views  the  party
\n\t approves  of  the  utterance  in  anticipation\t and
\n\t adopts\t that as his own. The principle is the\tsame
\n\t as that of reference to arbitration
\n\t The  reference under section 20 may be\t by  express
\n\t words or by conduct but in any case there must be a
\n\t clear\tadmission  to refer and such  admission\t are
\n\t generally  conclusive.\t Admissions may\t operate  as
\n\t estoppel and they do so where parties had agreed to
\n\t abide by them ”\n<\/p>\n
     A\tsimilar\t question  arose in  J.A.  Munnuswami  Naidu
\n(supra) before the division bench of the Madras High  Court.
\nThere  a suit had been filed on 16th June 1971 for  recovery
\nof  money  against the appellant on the foot of\t a  security
\nbond. The second respondent in the suit\t was a puisne  mort-
\ngagee.\tThe appellant filed the written statement  that\t the
\nrespondent, the first mortgagee had fraudulently  suppressed
\nthe  payment  of interest in the security bond\tand  if\t the
\nproper account was taken the money will be due to the  first
\nrespondent. When the suit was taken up for trail the  plain-
\ntiff agreed to take a special oath on his family deity\tthat
\nfor  the suit security bond no money except those  shown  by
\nway of endorsement was
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t      638<\/span>
\nreceived by him it was also agreed that the plaintiff  mort-
\ngagee  taking  such  an oath the suit may  be  decreed.\t The
\nplaintiff took a special oath and the suit was decreed.\t The
\njudgment  debtor filed an un-numbered execution\t application
\npraying that the decree be declared as a nullity having been
\npassed\tby the civil Court having no jurisdiction. The\texe-
\ncuting\tcourt dismissed the objections to the execution\t and
\nthe  matter  came up in appeal before the  High\t Court.\t The
\nlearned single judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal.
\nWhereupon the matter was taken up before the Division  bench
\nKailasam C.J(as his lordship then was) and Balasubrahmanyam,
\nJ.  dismissed  the Letters Patent Appeal. It  was  submitted
\nbefore\tthe division Bench that because the Oaths Act,\t1873
\nhas  been repealed what the plaintiff had stated on  special
\noath  is not an evidence. The learned single judge  who\t had
\nheard the appeal was confronted with the arguments that\t the
\ndate  on  which the special oath was taken  the\t Oaths\tAct,
\n1873,which provided that when a special oath was taken under
\nsection\t 10, it would be conclusive against the\t person\t who
\noffered was no longer in force as the said Act had been\t re-
\npealed\tin 1969 and the new act of 1969 dispensed  with\t the
\nprocedure  as  to  the taking of the special  oath  and\t its
\nconsequences it was common ground that the special oath\t was
\ntaken in ignorance of the fact that the Oaths Act,1873,under
\nwhich  the  procedure as to the taking of special  oath\t was
\nadmitted had been repealed and that the new Oaths Act had no
\nprovision for such a procedure. The division bench  observed
\nthat  they  could not accept the  contention  that   because
\nOaths  Act,1873\t has been repealed what\t the  plaintiff\t has
\nstated on special oath is not an evidence Earlier the single
\njudge had taken the same view.\n<\/p>\n
     The  question directly in issue came up before a  divi-
\nsion  bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  in  Thakur
\nsingh and others v.Inder Singh,AIR 1976 P & H 287.The  divi-
\nsion bench took the view that :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The\tonly effect of exclusion of section 9 to  12
\n\t of the oaths Act,1873 by Oaths Act,1969 is that  if
\n\t any  party to any judicial proceeding offers to  be
\n\t bound\tby any special oath and the court thinks  it
\n\t fit  to administer such an oath to the other  party
\n\t consenting  thereto and such oath is taken  by\t the
\n\t other\tparty  the evidence given on  such  oath  as
\n\t against  persons who offered to be bound as  afore-
\n\t said  would  no  more be conclusive  proof  of\t the
\n\t matter stated in such deposition where an agreement
\n\t was arrived at between the counsel for parties that
\n\t if the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  639<\/span>
\n\t Defendant were to take oath in a particular  Gurud-
\n\t wara  stating that the suit land was not of  plain-
\n\t tiff and that defendant had not executed any agree-
\n\t ment in favour of plaintiff, the suit of  plaintiff
\n\t be  dismissed and in pursuance of the order of\t the
\n\t Court on the basis of agreement, the defendant\t did
\n\t take  oath there being no special oath either\tpre-
\n\t scribed or taken and the suit having been dismissed
\n\t on the basis of such  oath
\n\t Held  that  the compromise arrived at\tbetween\t the
\n\t counsel  for the plaintiff of behalf of his  client
\n\t and  the  defendant appellant would be\t covered  by
\n\t section 20 the Evidence Act and the plaintiff would
\n\t be bound by the statement made by the defendant  if
\n\t the  same  is found to have been made\tstrictly  in
\n\t accordance with the terms offered by him”
\nIt  will  be noticed that in the present case the  oath\t was
\nadministered   as   per\t  plaintiffs\/petitioners   statement
\nand,therefore there is thus no manner of doubt that the oath
\ntaken by two persons is pursuance of the offer of the  peti-
\ntioner\tamounted to admission of respondent’s claim  on\t his
\npart  within the meaning of section 20 of the Evidence\tAct.
\nThe  two persons were the nominees of the plaintiff and\t the
\nstatement  of  the nominees by virtue of section 20  of\t the
\nEvidence Act would be treated as an admission of the parties
\nthus the orders of the Trial  court dated 14th\tOctober,1988
\nand 30th January ,1989 were unassailable and the High  court
\nhas rightly dismissed the revision petition .
\n  The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed  with-
\nout any order as to costs
\nN.V.K
\n\t\t\t\t\t Petition dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K.M. Singh vs Secretary, Association Of Indian … on 21 April, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 1356, 1992 SCR (2) 630 Author: Y Dayal Bench: Yogeshwar Dayal (J) PETITIONER: K.M. SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: SECRETARY, ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIESAND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/04\/1992 BENCH: YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) BENCH: YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) PANDIAN, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-207748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK.M. Singh vs Secretary, Association Of Indian ... on 21 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.M. Singh vs Secretary, Association Of Indian ... on 21 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1992-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-25T12:21:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.M. Singh vs Secretary, Association Of Indian … on 21 April, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-25T12:21:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992\"},\"wordCount\":2923,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992\",\"name\":\"K.M. Singh vs Secretary, Association Of Indian ... on 21 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-25T12:21:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.M. Singh vs Secretary, Association Of Indian … on 21 April, 1992\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.M. Singh vs Secretary, Association Of Indian ... on 21 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.M. Singh vs Secretary, Association Of Indian ... on 21 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-25T12:21:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.M. Singh vs Secretary, Association Of Indian … on 21 April, 1992","datePublished":"1992-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-25T12:21:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992"},"wordCount":2923,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992","name":"K.M. Singh vs Secretary, Association Of Indian ... on 21 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-25T12:21:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-singh-vs-secretary-association-of-indian-on-21-april-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.M. Singh vs Secretary, Association Of Indian … on 21 April, 1992"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207748","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=207748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}