The court upheld the principle that admissions regarding property rights prevent disputing those rights without evidence to the contrary.

1. The present Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Asansol on 23rd May, 2000 in Title Appeal No. 2 of l997/12 of l987 whereby the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree passed on 18th November, l986 in Title Suit No. 78 of l981, by the then learned Munsif, Second Court, Asansol.

2. The substituted legal heirs of the defendants in the suit are the Appellants and the plaintiff in the suit is the respondent herein.

3. The plaintiff's case in the suit may be summarized as follows : -
The plaintiff was the legal owner of the suit properties detailed in Schedule 'A', 'B' and 'C' to the plaint and the plaintiff was in continuous possession of those properties. The defendants in the suit, took a portion of the aforesaid plots in a lease granted by the son of the original plaintiff, Kanhaiyalal Kashuka through a registered Deed dated 15.09.l972. The plaintiff and his representatives were absent in the locality for sometime and taking advantage of their absence, the defendants illegally trespassed at first in the 'C' scheduled suit properties sometimes in the month of June, l976 and thereafter in the same way, the defendants trespassed into the 'A' scheduled suit properties and raised some unauthorised construction thereupon in the month of January, l977 and thereafter the defendants in the month of December, l978 again trespassed into the 'B' scheduled suit properties and constructed thereupon illegally, a privy.

4. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that the lease through the registered Deed dated 15.09.l972 executed by the plaintiff's son, Pannalal did not include any of the properties in the schedules 'A', 'B' or 'C' to the plaint and none of those properties was ever leased out by the plaintiff or his son to the defendant by any deed of conveyance, but in spite of not having any right, title and interest in any of the suit properties in the schedules 'A', 'B' or 'C' to the plaint, the defendants illegally trespassed into those properties of the plaintiff and raised unauthorized construction thereupon. The plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the suit properties, but of no result. Hence, the plaintiff filed the Title Suit being T.S. No. 78 / l981 praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit properties, and also praying for a decree for recovery of khass possession and other consequential reliefs.

5. The original defendant, Prahladrai Poddar contested the suit by filing his written statement and thereby denying all the material allegations in the plaint. Besides, it was his specific case, inter alia, that he was occupying the suit properties in the present suit as well as the suit properties in another suit being Title Suit No. 79 of l981 as a monthly tenant under the plaintiff since February, l972 and thereafter a Deed of Lease was executed on 15.09.l972 by the son of the original plaintiff in his favour by which the suit properties were leased out to him and on the basis of such Deed of Lease, he continued his possession in the suit properties. It was his further specific case that after receiving a copy of the present plaint as well as the copy of the plaint of the other suit, that is, Title Suit No.79 of l981 and also by inquiry thereafter he suddenly came to know that the suit properties in the present suit were not included in the schedule of the Deed of Lease in his favour although the present suit properties was leased out to him also by the Deed dated 15.09.l972. Thus, the defendant denied the plaintiff's allegation of trespass into the suit properties