Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri Sankatha Rai and Sri Purshottam Upadhyay, learned Counsels for the appellants and Smt. Swati Agrawal Advocate for the contesting respondents.

2. Second appeal No. 229 of 2007 arises out of original suit No. 96 of 1987, Baij Nath & Ors. v. Sonmati & Anr., which was dismissed on 1-10-1991 by the Additional Munsif Mohammadabad, Ghazipur. Civil appeal No. 242 of 1991, Baij Nath Ram & Ors. v. Sonmati & Anr., was preferred against the aforesaid judgment.

3. Second appeal No. 230 of 2007 arises out of Civil Suit No. 88 of 1987, Ramesh Bhar and Sonmati v. Baij Nath and Ram Chandar, which was decreed, against which regular appeal was filed vide Civil Appeal No. 243 of 1991, Baij Nath Bhar v. Ramesh Bhar & Ors. Both the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 12-9-2006. Common evidence was led in both the cases as such both the second appeals are being decided together.

4. Record was summoned before the appeals were admitted, an interim order was granted in favour of the appellants. The suit instituted by the contesting respondents was for a decree for demolition against the appellants and for removal of unauthorized construction situated over the land shown by letters CDEFG and to restore the land to its original position. The relief claimed in the suit instituted by the appellants was for grant of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering and demolishing the constructions standing over the land in question.

5. Record is available. Both the appeal are heard and as agreed between the respective Counsels, the appeals are decided finally the stage of admission.

6. Before proceeding to decide the appeals, the substantial questions of law on which learned Counsels addressed the Court, are enumerated herein below :

"A. Whether the plaintiffs’ suit for perpetual injunction was proved by the own admission of the defendant No. 1 Smt. Sonmati which is the best evidence which the plaintiffs can rely upon, but the Courts below have ignored same altogether ?

B. Whether the Courts below have ignored the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1956 SC 364 (at page 382) and AIR 1977 SC 174, while dealing with the admission of the defendant No. 2 Smt. Sonmati who herself admitted the plaintiffs’ title and possession over the disputed land ?’

7. Learned Counsel for the appellants at the very outset placed two plaint maps in the two suits, one at the instance of the appellants to demonstrate that the disputed construction was on the eastern side. This is the own admission of Smt. Sonmati, which also stands substantiated by report and also the map prepared by Commissioner dated 16-1-1990. Learned Counsel has placed the statement of Smt. Sonmati to demonstrate that she has clearly and unequivocally admitted that the disputed constructions were in front of her door situated on the eastern side. The argument is that there can be no evidence better than the own admission of the respondents, the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse, illegal and liable to be set at naught. In support of his argument, learned Counsel after placing the statement of Sonmati and Commissioner’s report has cited certain decisions of the Apex Court, Nagubai Ammal & Ors. v. B. Shama Rao & Ors., AIR 1956 SC 593, Thiru John v. Returning Officer & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1724 and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 526. Learned Counsel has tried to emphasize that the Apex Court has ruled in all the aforesaid decisions that it is settled law that a party’s admission if clearly and unequivocally made, is the best evidence against the party making it though not conclusive, shifts the onus of proof on the maker of such admission on the principle that “what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so and until presumption is rebutted the fact admitted must be taken to be established” and therefore, an ejectment suit can onl