plausible and probable and when in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is precluded from substituting another view even if such a view is possible. In fact, in the context of the present case, any view contrary to the view taken by the Court below is not possible. Therefore, the first contention of the appellants on the admissions in the written statement of the defendants cannot be countenanced. Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code mandates that every allegation of fact in the plaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability. The law is also well settled that when the defendants admit the plaintiffs’ claim, they cannot be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff and their witnesses. It is apt to note that the law is also well settled that admissions in pleadings, which are unequivocal and categorical, are the best form of proof on which the parties can rely to succeed in the suit/defence. Moreover at this second appeal stage, the plaintiffs cannot be non suited for not otherwise proving their title for the reason that they had banked upon the admissions of the defendants and proceeded on the assumption that they would succeed on the admissions insofar as item 2 of lot I and items nos. 1 and 3 of lot II of the plaint schedule property. Had the defendants withdrawn these admissions by following the procedure established, perhaps, the plaintiffs would have had an opportunity to adduce other evidence to prove their title possessory/ancestral or otherwise. Since the admissions were very much available on record and are not withdrawn at a time when the matters are pending before the trial Court, the plaintiffs cannot be now non-suited by allowing the defendants to contend that the admissions are made by mistake or inadvertence and without instructions to the counsel or on the ground that they are not binding upon them and are insufficient to grant a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. As per the settled legal position, admissions made in the pleadings by a party in the same proceedings are conclusive and forms a substantive piece of evidence and operate as estoppel. The view of this Court gets reinforced from the decision in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Another. Therefore, the 1st contention advanced to counter the admissions in the written statement in the present context of the matter is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected. The said contention is accordingly rejected.
