Privilege for compromise negotiations: letter held inadmissible because it was made during settlement talks.

A letter written during compromise negotiations was held protected by section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act because the surrounding circumstances showed it was made in the course of settlement talks on an implied understanding that it would not be used in evidence. The Court held that such an admission remains irrelevant in civil proceedings whether the exclusion is express or can be inferred from the parties' conduct. The fact that the letter was adverse to the writer's case did not remove that protection. The letter was therefore privileged and inadmissible in evidence, and the revision petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a letter written during compromise negotiations was protected by section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore inadmissible in evidence.

Analysis: Section 23 makes an admission irrelevant in civil cases if it is made on an express condition that evidence of it shall not be given, or if it is made in circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed that evidence of it should not be given. The letter in question was admittedly written during the period when compromise talks were going on between the parties. From the surrounding circumstances, the Court inferred that it was written in the course of settlement negotiations and that the parties had agreed that it would not be used as evidence. The fact that the letter would have damaged the writer's case did not take it outside the protection of the section.

Conclusion: The letter was privileged and inadmissible in evidence. The revision petition was dismissed.

---