An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous.

1. - This Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned District Judge. Jaipur City, dated September 26, 1979, in an application for grant of Succession Certificate/ Letters of Administration to the estate of late Shri Jagdish Narain.

2. It will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that non-petitioner (Sic petitioner) filed an application for grant of Succession Certificate and Letters of Administration to the estate of deceased Jagdish Narain stating that he is the only son and heir of the deceased When the notice of this application was published in news-paper, the appellant non-petitioner filed objections alleging that he was also a son of late Jagdish Narain and equally entitled to the estate of the deceased and petitioner. After recording evidence of both the parties. the learned District Judge granted both the reliefs to the respondent vide its judgment dated September 26, 1979.

3. The contention of Shri P. D. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant is that it is admitted that deceased Jagdish Narain had remarried with Shanti Devi, daughter of Kalyan Bux Shri Ganga Sagar is admittedly the son of the first wife of the deceased. It is also admitted by both the parties that Shanti Devi gave birth to a son, so the dispute is whether the appellant is son born to Shanti Devi and therefore, entitled to claim equal share in the property left by the deceased. It is contended that the trial court has gravely erred in holding that the appellant is son of Kalyan Bux father of Shanti Devi, even though Kalyan Bux himself and several other witnesses have stated that Kalyan Bux had no real or adopted son. It is also stressed that merely because the appellant was brought from his childhood i.e. two or three years by his maternal father (sic Grand father) Kalyan Bux it does not mean that he was son of Kalyan Bux even though he was treated by Kalyan Bux as like his son. It is also pointed out that witnesses produced on behalf of appellant' including R.W. 4 Hanuman, R. W. 5 Gopi Ram, R.W. 8 Kalyan Bux, D W. 12 Damodari and D.W 10 Ram Sawroop Vaidh have stated that appellant is son of deceased Jagdish Narain, who was born to his wife Smt. Shanti Devi, daughter of Kalyan Bux. It is also pointed out that admittedly date of birth of the appellant is June 15, 1949. The register of Municipal Council Jaipur, which was proved by D W. 10 Ram Swaroop clearly establishes that Kalyan Bux had no son and no male child was born to him on June 15, 1949. It is further pointed out that apart from several other documents, in the gift deed Ex. A 8 executed by Shri Bala Bux, father of deceased Jagdish Narain. it is mentioned that deceased had two sons including Ganga Sagar. This clearly goes to show that the appellant is son of decased Jagdish Narain. Shri Anwar Ahmed, appearing on behalf of Shri N.D. Mantri contends that the trial court has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant and held that be is not the son of deceased Jagdish Narain. It is pointed out that entries in various school certificates clearly show that he is son of Kalyan Bux as mentioned in the certificates. It is, therefore contended that the judgment of the trial court does not call for any interference.

4. I have heard learned both the counsel, gone through the judgment of the trial court as also statements of various witnesses and documents on record. A.W.1 Ganga Sagar respondent has stated in his statement that after death of his mother, his father, deceased Jagdish Narain did marry Shanti Devi and that a son was barn to her. However, he states that 22 years earlier, Shanti Devi left the house of his father and took the child alongwith herself. At that time age of the child was about on year. In cross-examination he states that he does not know whether appellant Pooran is real or adopted son of Kalyan Bux. He also states that Kalyan Bux does not have any other son except Pooran Mal. A.W. 2 Radhey Shyam in cross has stated that it is corre