JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against judgment and decree dated 10-4-1974 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dismissing appeals no. 126 and 128 of 1971-72, District Agra against judgment and decree dated 30-12-1971 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Class Agra. 2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for division of half share alleging that it was ancestral property of the time of his father and defendants are sons of his brother Tota. Their other land was divided in the consolidation operations but as the plots in suit were out side consolidation they were not divided, hence the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants alleging that the land in suit was acquired by their father Tota and the plaintiff has got no share. 4. Both the courts held the share of the plaintiff to be 1 bigha 9 biswa on the ground that the plaintiff in his statement had admitted that area only to be of this share, although it was held by both the courts below that the land in suit was of the time of Ganeshi. 5. Uda plaintiff died and has been substituted by his two sons. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that both the courts below wrongly interpreted the statement of the plaintiff Uda to have admitted his share to be only 1 bighs 9 biswa. The admission of share is a pure question of law which ought to have been decided according to evidence on record to be only 1 bigha 9 biswa. Reliance has been placed on M/s. Bijlli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. The Presiding Office, Industrial Tribunal II, Allahabad and others, A.I.R. 1972 (S.C.) page 1903, Nanha & another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur and others, A.I.R. 1976 (Allahabad) page 91, Ganesh Prasad v. State of U.P. & others, 1974 A.L.J. page 628 and Kailash Narain Khare v. The Prescribed Authority (Sub-Divisional Officer) Mauranipur, Jhansi and others, 1978 A.W.C. page 697. 8. 8. It was argued in reply that the admission of a party is the best piece of evidence which was rightly relied upon by both the courts below and as the plaintiff had admitted his share in the land in suit to be only 1 bigha 9 biswa, therefore, no error was committed by both the courts below and their concurred findings cannot be interfered with in this second appeal. 9. In was held in M/s. Bijilli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal II, Allahabad and others (Supra) that in law and the classificatory statement made under Rule 12 was in the nature of a supplementary pleading. It could not be treated as evidence, and that the statement was to be read as a whole and if so read it did not constitute any admission as taking away the effect of the basis plea. 10. The said ruling was relied in Nanha and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur and others (Supra) in which it was held if it appears that a court of fact has in substance based its findings on no evidence or that its finding is perverse in the sense that no reasonable person could possibly come to that conclusion or that it erroneously ignores a vital plea or material evidence which affects the result, a manifest error of law apparent on the face of record leading to failure of justice can be said to be established. 11. In the present case the plaintiff had claimed half share claiming the holding to be ancestral of the time of his father. This was the basis plea. Now the question is whether plaintiff had admitted specifically his share to be only 1 bigha 9 biswa in the disputed land or not. His statement should have been read by the courts below as a whole which on reading shows that he stated that he has got half share in the disputed land but he was in possession only on 1 bigha 9 biswa. He never stated that his share was only 1 bigha 9 biswa. His statement should have been read by the courts below as a whole which on reading shows that he stated that he has got half share in the disputed land but he was in possession only on 1 bigha 9 biswa. He never stated that his share was only 1 bigha 9 biswa. The admission about share is a pure question of law and parties claim should be examined on the basis of evidence on record as to whether the admission of question of law is correct or not and not on the basis of admission made in some earlier proceeding about the extent of share as has been held in Kailash Narain Khara v. The Prescribed Authority (Sub Divisional Officer Mauranipur) Jhansi. It is well known that the admission with regard to the share of a person in a disputed khata is an admission on the question of law. Since the facts given in the judgment as well as the writ petition indicate that the property in ancestral property and there being six sons the petitioner each would get only ?th share, it is but proper that the petitioner's claim should be examined on the basis of the evidence on the record as to whether the admission on question of law is a correct one or in the circumstances of the present case whether the petitioner's present stand that he would get only ?th share is legally correct. In my opinion the appellate authority has taken two technical view that the petitioner would be bound by the admission made little realising that the aforesaid admission is no the question of law and if in law the petitioner is entitled to only ?th share, the determination of surplus area would stand vitiated in law." 12. In the present case both the courts below have held the disputed land to be of the time of Ganesh ancestor of the parties and the plaintiff was son of Ganesh and the other son was Tota father of the defendants, therefore, Uda and Tota both have half share in the land in suit. Admission, if true and clear is not doubt the best proof of the fact admitted and admission of a party stands on higher footing and is fully binding on the party that makes it. Admission, if true and clear is not doubt the best proof of the fact admitted and admission of a party stands on higher footing and is fully binding on the party that makes it. They can be the foundation of the rights of the parties but evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themsevles, not conclusive they can be shown to be wrong. 13. It is true that the pleas made in the plaint ought to be substantiated by evidence. The plaintiffs substantiated his plain case and both the courts below rightly held that the land in suit was ancestral holding of the parties, then the legal share of the plaintiff being half should have been decreed by both the courts below instead of taking too technical unwarranted view relying on the statement of the plaintiff that as he stated that he was in possession only on 1 bigha 9 biswa of the disputed land, therefore, his share should be only 1 bigha 9 biswa. Both the courts below forgot the rule that the possession of one co-tenant is the possession of other co-tenant unless ouster of a co-tenant is pleaded and is proved to have been open and hostile which was not the case in the present case. The parties had large number of plots and they were in possession separately but they never ceased to be co-tenants. Large number of plots were divided amounts them during the consolidation proceedings. The disputed land was outside consolidation operation and merely the fact that plaintiff was in possession only on 1 bigha 9 biswa according to his admission he did not lose his legal share which was half in the land in suit by the mere fact of his having been in possession only on 1 bigha 9 biswa, therefore, I hold that the plaintiff has got half share in the disputed land which ought to have been decreed to him, therefore, this appeal is liable to be allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside. 14. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed with costs. The judgments and decrees passed both the courts below are hereby set aside. The plaintiff's suit is decreed for division of half share in the disputed land.