The admission of facts by defendants does not necessarily benefit the plaintiff if not conclusively established in support of the claims, particularly regarding land encroachment and right of access.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2019 (Decree signed on 10.06.2019) passed by the learned District Judge-XII, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No.1 of 2014 confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2013 (Decree signed on 19.12.2013) passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division-I), Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 93 of 2007.

3. The present appellant was the plaintiff in the suit.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the plaintiff has lost in both the courts, but the courts have miserably failed to consider that the specific averments made in Paragraph-6 of the plaint to the effect that while constructing her house, the plaintiff left a strip of land in eastern side for ingress and egress and for other purposes and this fact remained unrebutted and uncontroverted, rather admitted by the defendants in Paragraph-11 of their written statement. He submitted that the admitted fact need not be proved and therefore, the second appeal is to be admitted on the aforesaid substantial question of law framed in Paragraphs- D and E as under:

“(D) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees of both the learned courts below are vitiated on account of non-consideration of the settled principle of law that admission is the best evidence.

(E) Whether having not appreciated the specific averments made by the plaintiff in para-6 of the plaint to the effect that while constructing her house, she left a strip of lands in eastern side for egress and ingress and for other purposes remained un-rebutted and uncontroverted, rather admitted by the defendants in Para-11 of their Written Statement, both the learned court below are justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant?”

5. During the course of argument, the learned counsel submitted that in the substantial question of law, framed in the memo of appeal on Paragraph-E, the concerned paragraph has been wrongly mentioned as Paragraph-12 and instead it should be read as Paragraph-11. The learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to make necessary corrections in the Memorandum of Appeal, which is permitted to be corrected and 'Para-12 of the Written Statement' referred to in Paragraph-E of the Substantial Questions of Law be read as 'Para-11 of the Written Statement'

6. This Court finds that the plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of possession and declaration of title and injunction, etc. on the suit plot bearing Plot No.314, Khata No.8 situated within Mauza Barmasia, Mouza No.49, District- Dhanbad measuring an area of 75 feet length X 2 ½ feet wide as detailed in Schedule B of the plaint. The case of the plaintiff was that 4 ½ decimals of land was purchased by the plaintiff by registered Sale Deed No.1122 dated 27.01.1989 from Rameshwar Mahto and further an area of 4 ½ decimals was purchased from Rama Nandan Sharma under registered Sale Deed No.7843 dated 20.08.2007. Both these plots were shown as Schedule A as Items No. I and II of the plaint. The plaintiff got her name mutated. The plaintiff constructed a house on the said land and in the eastern side, she left some land purely for personal use of ingress and egress and also for repairing and white washing of the outer wall of the house as shown in Schedule B of the plaint. It was their further case that in the year 2000, the defendants started disturbing the possession of the plaintiff over Schedule B lan