Skip to content

CS Professional · Internal and Forensic Audit · Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence Law

In a dispute audited by a forensic team, Kiran Traders, a party to an attested loan deed required by law to be attested, admits in court that he executed it himself. Which statement is correct as against Kiran?

His admission is sufficient proof of execution as against him. Section 69 provides that a party to an attested document who admits its execution by himself is bound by that admission, even where the document is required by law to be attested, so an attesting witness is not needed against him.

  1. AThe deed still cannot be used until an attesting witness is called
  2. BHis admission of execution is sufficient proof of execution as against himCorrect
  3. CHis admission binds all other parties to the deed
  4. DThe admission is valid only if the deed is registered

Explanation

Section 69 says a party's admission of execution by himself is sufficient proof as against him, even for a document required by law to be attested. The rule operates against the admitting party only, so the claim that it binds others is wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence Law shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence LawFree diagnostic mock

More Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence Law questions