know any of the said 10/12 persons. He also did not know the name of the tractor driver. He also states that the defendants were not present at the time demarcation of Khasra No.175 and land of defendants does not adjoin the suit property. PW-3 also does not know regarding the sizes of the logs of wood, which were cut by the defendants. PW-3 states that he only came to know on the last day when wood was being loaded in the tractor Trolley. The PW-3 does not state that the wood of 20 big Kikker trees can be loaded into one Tractor Trolley. The PW-3 in his cross-examination states that in the first meeting of the Khangi Panchayat, the defendants stated that first land should be demarcated and only then, they would talk about anything else. At the time of second Khangi Panchayat which held after the demarcation, the defendants demanded more time. PW-3 admits that at the second Khangi Panchayt, there was no talk regarding the money. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no documentary evidence or clinching oral evidence to show that the defendants ever admitted the liability to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/-to the plaintiffs for the trees, allegedly cut from the land of the plaintiffs.
