V. Jagannathan, J:

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No., 5110/03 by the trial Court by which the learned Judge had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment of the’ defendant and hence, the defendant is before this Court in this appeal.

2. The case of the parties briefly stated is that the respondent-plaintiff was married to one B.S. Narayan and by virtue of an order passed in MJ Petition No. 854 of 1981 by the Bombay City Civil Court on 22.8.1982, the said marriage was dissolved and it is the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the consent terms entered into between the plaintiff and her husband B.S. Narayan, so for as the property that was purchased in the year 1975 in the name of the plaintiff and her mother-in-law Lakshmamma is concerned, the plaintiff has been declared to be the absolute owner of the building that was put upon the land and neither the husband B.S. Narayan nor the plaintiffs mother-in-law have any right to any portion of the building standing in the land. It is also the case of the plaintiff that in terms of the release deed executed on 15.12.1982, the plaintiffs mother-in-law viz., Lakshmamma also released her right, title and interest in the land bearing No. l/B, Cunningham Road, Bangalore, in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and following the appellant herein failing to pay the rents, the present suit was filed seeking ejectment of the appellant and also for the arrears of rent.

3. The appellant-defendant contested the said suit of the plaintiff by taking up the stand that the release deed executed by Lakshmamma is void ab initio because, Lakshamma was not explained about the contents of the said release deed. Secondly, insofar as the H.R.C. proceedings are concerned, following abatement of the said proceedings are concerned, following abatement of the said proceedings, the plaintiff cannot make use of the material which was placed before the H.R.C. Court in H.R.C. No. 1543,of 1997 which proceedings got culminated with the dismissal of the revision petition by this Court as having been abated. Therefore, the plaintiff has no title to the suit property. It was. also the appellant’s case in her written statement that following the death of Lakshmamma, she ‘inherited Lakshmamma’s share by virtue of a registered will left by deceased Lakshmamma. As far as the notice issued to the appellant and the reply given by her is concerned, it is stated that the admission made on mistaken notion cannot have any binding effect nor can it operate as an estoppel against the maker. Therefore, Section 116 of the Evidence Act h~s no application. Another defence taken in the written statement pertains to claiming a right over the suit properly by adverse possession and, being the second wife of Narayan, the appellant stepped into the shoes of Narayan and perfected the title by adverse possession. For all these reasons, she prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.

4. The said pleadings of the parties led the trial Court to frame the following issues:

5. After appreciating the evidence let in by the parties, the trial Court answered issues-1 to 3 in the affirmative and issues-4 and 5 in the negative and as a result of the said findings, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed giving the appellant-defendant two months’ time to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent-plaintiff together with arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,26,000/- with 18% interest from the date of the suit till the date of judgment and thereafter at 6%. It is this judgment and decree of the trial Court that is called in question by the appellant-defendant in the present appeal.

6. I have heard the learned senior Counsel Sri Udaya Holla for the appellant and the learned Counsel Sri Shaker Shetty for the respondent. Both sides have relied on number of decisions to support their contentions.