Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri M.A.Qadeer, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Waris, Advocate for defendants-appellants and Sri Niraj Agarwal, Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1.

2. The defendants-respondents 2, 4 and 5 have died and since their heirs or legal representatives were not brought on record, appeal stood abated against them pursuant to this Court’s order dated 29th April, 2010. The entire appeal had not abated for the reason that decree holder plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is there and cause of action therefore, continues to survive.

3. This is defendants’ appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). After hearing this appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11 CPC, this Court formulated following two substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether alleged admission by a party is to be taken as a whole?

(ii) Whether Rules regarding Pardanashi lady would apply equally to a ignorant and illiterate woman though she may not be a Pardanashi?

4. The brief facts giving rise to present dispute are as under:

5. The plaintiff-respondent brought an Original Suit No. 97 of 1972 for specific performance of contract in respect t