R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:- Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Both these appeals have been filed against the dismissal of notices of motion taken out by the appellants-plaintiffs for decree on alleged admission by the original defendant No.3 about the rights of the appellants to the property in question.

3. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants that the respondent NO.3 (original defendant No.3) has admitted that the earlier decree was obtained by fraud and that defendant No. 3 has no right whatsoever to the property in question and that, therefore, on this admission itself, the appellants' claim of the ownership right to the property in question should be decreed as against the defendant No.3, invoking the provisions of Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The claim of the appellants is disputed by other defendants while contending that the stand taken by the defendant No.2 in relation to the claim of ownership to the suit property by the appellants is in collusion with the latter to the detriment of the rights of the said defendants to the suit property. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration various aspects of the matter including the point that the appellants-plaintiffs themselves had joined the other defendants as the parties to the suit on the basis of their claim of ownership right through the defendant No. 3 consequent to certain agreements entered into between the defendant No.3 and those defendants in relation to the property in question, has held that it would not be appropriate to decree the suit against the defendant No.3 on the alleged admission. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, we find no infirmity in the said finding and, therefore, on that count itself, the interference with the impugned order is not called for.

5. It is not in dispute that the appellants themselves have chosen to join those defendants as the parties to the suit on the basis that the appellants had learnt about the agreements between the defendant No.3 and those defendants in relation to the suit property, and that consequently those defendants are seeking to claim right to the suit property. Besides, it is a matter of record that those defendants have stated on oath that there has been a collusion between the appellants-plaintiffs and the defendant No. 3 and as a result thereof, the said statement has been made by the defendant No.3 in the Written Statement about the admission of the claim of the appellants-plaintiffs solely with the intention of' defeating the right acquired by those defendants through the defendant No.3.

6. The law on the point that the suit can be decreed on admission in exercise of powers under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well settled. In order to decree the suit on the basis of the admission, the same should be unequivocal, unambiguous and clear in all respects revealing the fact that the plaintiffs' case in relation to the claim in the suit has been clearly admitted by the defendants or the concerned defendant. That is not the case in the matter in hand. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the appellants-plaintiffs and the other defendants who are claiming right to the property through the defendant No.3. Whether the defendant No.3 really had the ownership right in the property and/or had the right to convey the property in favour of those defendants, and in fact had conveyed such right in their favour, are the issues which are required to be gone into at the time of trial and necessary adjudication in that regard is required. In the circumstances, therefore, it would be too premature to decree the suit against the defendant No.3, on the basis of the alleged admission, in exercise of powers under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. The provisions of law comprised under Order XII, Rule 6 of the C