Admissions made by a party in previous proceedings are binding unless proven to be incorrect. Oral exchanges of property were permissible at the relevant time.

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. When the factum of exchange of title to the land is neither evidenced by any legal document nor entries in the revenue record are shown to be lawfully substituted, could the factum of exchange having taken place be assumed merely on the basis of the entries incorporated during settlement. Could the principle that the entries in the revenue record have presumption of truth wrongly applied when such entries were not shown to be lawfully substituted either on the basis of lawful order or having any other lawful basis?

2. Whether the entries appearing in the revenue record showing the possession on account of “Davedhar Tabadla” be held to mean that any exchange between the parties has taken place in lawful manner: Are not entries in the revenue record particularly Exhibits P-8 and P-10 misread and misappropriated to hold that there was a valid exchange of title between the parties to the suit?

3. When the party to the suit, who is alleged to be the maker of the admissions in the previous judicial proceedings, alleges and proves that such alleged admissions were made on account of mistake due to lack of communication and claimed that such admissions are untrue and made in mistaken belief? Can such admissions be held to be binding on such party thereby holding the transfer of the title merely on the basis of such erroneous admission alleged to have been made in the previous proceedings?

4. Whether one of the party to the suit who has allegedly made admission in the previous proceedings, could bind all the other parties to the suit who are not party to the previous proceedings, were not the courts below competent to take into consideration such facts as well as explanation of the maker of the admissions to hold that such admissions are not binding?

5. Whether the report of the Local Commissioner appointed for demarcation of the properties could be taken into consideration as an evidence, without deciding the objections raised by one of the aggrieved party to the proceedings in the suit, was not it the duty of the court to have first decided the objections to the Local Commissioner’s Report as well as affording the opportunity to the Objector to cross-examine the Local Commissioner, before such report of the Local Commissioner to be received in evidenced and relied upon? Are not findings of the courts below based on inadmissible evidence and stands vitiated?

6. Whether the plea of the Appellants of adverse possession could have been rejected merely on the ground that at the time when the structures were raised, the appellants believed that such land belong to them thereby lacking animous of hostility, are not the overt acts of enclosing the said property by barbed wires and raised structure thereupon without objection from the concerned person amounts to exercising the animous of hostility and thereby satisfying the basic ingredients of holding such property by adverse possession, are not the findings of both the courts below rendered contrary to the said facts and law erroneous and perverse?

7. Whether the findings of both the courts below regarding maintainability of the suit having barred by limitation and further the plaintiff having failed to establish to file the present suit based on erroneous assumptions of facts, wrong application of law hence stands vitiated?” 2. This appeal has been filed by some of the original plaintiffs or their successors. Similarly, the respondents are the original defendants No. 1 to 3 and the legal heirs of defendant No. 4. For the purposes of this appeal, they are being referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants as reflected in the original pleadings. 3. Om Prakash and Lekh Raj, i.e. plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 were sanctioned Nautor land measuring 9 bighas 7 biswas, comprised in khasra No. 435/395. Another portion of land out of the same khasra No. 295, comprised in khasra No.