JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is appellant's Second appeal against order dated May 3, 1973 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division allowing Appeal No. 132 of 1971-72, Etawah setting aside the judgement and order dated March 18, 1972 passed by Tahsildar Auraiya, district Etawah in a case under Old Section 137-A of Act I of 1951. 2. The facts in brief are, that Hanumant Singh was Sirdar of the disputed land who had deposited 20 times of rent for issuing of Bhumidhari Sanand on January 8, 1970 and had executed sale deed in favour of respondent. Order was passed for issuing Sanad on March 7, 1970. 3. The appellant applied on July 17, 1971 that Hanumant Singh had died on March 4, 1970, therefore, Sanad was wrongly issued in the name of Hanumant Singh on March 7, 1970. 4. Respondent filed objection on October 4, 1971 that Hanumant Sigh had died after the order of issuance of Sanad was passed in the month of Chait. 5. The trial court had held that Hanumant Singh had died on March 4, 1970 and set aside order dated March 7, 1970 which was set aside by the learned Additional Commissioner. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the applicant had alleged in the mutation case that Hanumant Singh had died on March 4, 1970 and the respondent had not disputed it in that case that the lower appellate court wrongly discarded admissible evidence, the copy of the Kutumb register, which was prepared according to Section 109-A of the Panchayat Raj Act and the testimony of P. Ws. was also wrongly discarded; that admission of a party is not admissible in a suit and the applicant's statement in the mutation case was wrongly relied upon as his admission. 8. was also wrongly discarded; that admission of a party is not admissible in a suit and the applicant's statement in the mutation case was wrongly relied upon as his admission. 8. It was argued in reply that the applicant in his objection dated October 4, 1971 had clearly alleged the death of Hanumant Singh to be in the month of Chait after order for issuance of Sanad was passed that the Sanad was not issued in the name of dead person; that in the mutation case the applicant had stated on December 10, 1970 that Hanumant Singh had died 8 or 9 months ago in the month of Chait which was binding on him and the copy of the Kutumb register was not certified by the Pradhan to be true copy and it does not bear any date and the provisions of Section 109-A of the Panchayat Raj Act and Form D under Section 26-A of that Act were not complied with, therefore, it was rightly held by the lower appellate court, that it was not admissible in evidence as a true copy and it was not admissible under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, that the month of Chait in 1970 started from March 22, and Hanumant Singh could not be held to have died before March 22, 1970 since when the month of Chait started according to the diaries of that year and that date falls after March 7, 1970, therefore, the order of the trial court was highly unjustified and it had placed reliance on inadmissible evidence and the order of the first appellate court is based on proper appraisal of documentary and oral evidence which cannot be interfered with in Second Appeal. 9. In my considered opinion the copy of Kutumb register is not admissible in evidence as it does not bear the certificate to be true copy of the original as required by Section 109-A of the Panchayat Raj Act and no reliance can be placed on inadmissible evidence. The previous statement of December 10, 1970, in the mutation case, of the applicant that Hanumant Singh had died 8 or 9 months ago in the month of Chait is binding on him. He being a party to that mutation proceeding and to the present case. The previous statement of December 10, 1970, in the mutation case, of the applicant that Hanumant Singh had died 8 or 9 months ago in the month of Chait is binding on him. He being a party to that mutation proceeding and to the present case. Only admission regarding title in a mutation case is not binding but admission regarding other matters including the matter in question is binding on a party. The month of Chait in 1970 started from March 22, 1970, therefore, Hanumant Singh according to the own admission of the appellant died after March 7, 1970 the date of order for issuance of the Sanad, therefore, Sanad was not issued in the name of a dead person and 1968 R.D. page 99 is not applicable to the present case. In the inadmissible copy of the Kutumb Register the information of death is alleged to have been given by Subey Singh P.W. 1 who had specifically denied to have given information to any prescribed authority, that information is noted to be of July 7,1970 which is about 4 months after the alleged date and long after the order for issuing the Sanad was passed and no receipt to the informant was issued according to Section 26-A of the Panchayat Raj Act in Form D and no counterfoil for it has been failed or proved according to rule 143 of the Panchayat Raj Rules. 10. In my considered opinion the statements of D.Ws. are more reliable as they are corroborated by the admission of the applicant that Hanumant Singh died in the month of Chait in 1970 and the copy of the Kutumb Register being not admissible in evidence. Entries in it do not appear to be genuine as informant Subey Singh mentioned in that copy has denied to have given any information. No receipt having been issued to the informant. The trial court had wrongly placed reliance on the Kutumb Register. The first appellate court after proper appraisal of documentary and oral evidence came to a right conclusion that Hanumant Singh had died after March 7, 1970 after the order for issuing Sanad was passed and rightly dismissed the application of the applicant. I entirely agree with the findings of the lower appellate court. There is no force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. 11. I entirely agree with the findings of the lower appellate court. There is no force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the above, this appeal is hereby dismissed with costs, and the order and findings of the lower appellate court hereby confirmed.