It is a settled legal position that “admission is the best evidence which binds the person

giving it” and “a thing admitted need not be proved” Reliance can placed on the case law

cited as Gannmani Anasuya Vs PA Chowdhary 2007(3)CCC 248 SC Moreover at this

stage, this court finds it appropriate to refer to the judicial pronouncements cited Nagiadas

Ramdas Vs Dalpat Ram 1974 CLJ 57, Ramji Dayawala Vs Invest Import 1981 AIR SC

2085 and Bhagwan Ram Vs Brij Lal 2000(2) RCR (civil) 349 wherein it has been observed

by Hon’ble courts that “the admissions are best piece of evidence and the admissions which

are made in pleadings or judicial admission are admissible in evidence. As per Section 58 of

Indian Evidence Act the admissions made by the parties or their agents or before the hearing

of case stands on the higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of

admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof”.

The observations made in the authorities (supra) are fully applicable to the facts of present

case and the material admissions which have been made by plaintiff during its cross-

examination candidly admitting the case of the defendants in toto. Furthermore the plaintiff

sealed its fate by candidly admitting that she is not having exclusive possession.

At this stage it is worth mentioning here that it is a settled legal position that “a person in

possession of a property is deemed to continue till evicted in due course of law”. Reliance

can be placed on case titled as Rame Gowda Vs. MV Naidu AIR 2004 SC 4609, wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court made following observations regarding right of a person in

possession to seek injunction “so far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful

possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may

even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been

wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and

without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the

property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to

law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his

possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by

restraining even a rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands, and also

by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (subject to the law of

limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force”. As in the

instant case the plaintiff admittedly is in actual and specific possession of the suit property

in consequent to the impugned registered sale deed, thus the defendants have miserably

failed to establish by leading clear, cogent and convincing evidence that on date of suit they

have lawful possession, interest or title in suit property and the plaintiff have tried to

interfere or disturb such lawful interest as it is the well settled position of law that the

possessory title is a good title as against everybody other than the lawful owner.