JUDGMENT 1. - This Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned District Judge. Jaipur City, dated September 26, 1979, in an application for grant of Succession Certificate/ Letters of Administration to the estate of late Shri Jagdish Narain. 2. It will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that non-petitioner (Sic petitioner) filed an application for grant of Succession Certificate and Letters of Administration to the estate of deceased Jagdish Narain stating that he is the only son and heir of the deceased When the notice of this application was published in news-paper, the appellant non-petitioner filed objections alleging that he was also a son of late Jagdish Narain and equally entitled to the estate of the deceased and petitioner. After recording evidence of both the parties. the learned District Judge granted both the reliefs to the respondent vide its judgment dated September 26, 1979. 3. The contention of Shri P. D. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant is that it is admitted that deceased Jagdish Narain had remarried with Shanti Devi, daughter of Kalyan Bux Shri Ganga Sagar is admittedly the son of the first wife of the deceased. It is also admitted by both the parties that Shanti Devi gave birth to a son, so the dispute is whether the appellant is son born to Shanti Devi and therefore, entitled to claim equal share in the property left by the deceased. It is contended that the trial court has gravely erred in holding that the appellant is son of Kalyan Bux father of Shanti Devi, even though Kalyan Bux himself and several other witnesses have stated that Kalyan Bux had no real or adopted son. It is also stressed that merely because the appellant was brought from his childhood i.e. two or three years by his maternal father (sic Grand father) Kalyan Bux it does not mean that he was son of Kalyan Bux even though he was treated by Kalyan Bux as like his son. It is also pointed out that witnesses produced on behalf of appellant' including R.W. 4 Hanuman, R. W. 5 Gopi Ram, R.W. 8 Kalyan Bux, D W. 12 Damodari and D.W 10 Ram Sawroop Vaidh have stated that appellant is son of deceased Jagdish Narain, who was born to his wife Smt. Shanti Devi, daughter of Kalyan Bux. It is also pointed out that witnesses produced on behalf of appellant' including R.W. 4 Hanuman, R. W. 5 Gopi Ram, R.W. 8 Kalyan Bux, D W. 12 Damodari and D.W 10 Ram Sawroop Vaidh have stated that appellant is son of deceased Jagdish Narain, who was born to his wife Smt. Shanti Devi, daughter of Kalyan Bux. It is also pointed out that admittedly date of birth of the appellant is June 15, 1949. The register of Municipal Council Jaipur, which was proved by D W. 10 Ram Swaroop clearly establishes that Kalyan Bux had no son and no male child was born to him on June 15, 1949. It is further pointed out that apart from several other documents, in the gift deed Ex. A 8 executed by Shri Bala Bux, father of deceased Jagdish Narain. it is mentioned that deceased had two sons including Ganga Sagar. This clearly goes to show that the appellant is son of decased Jagdish Narain. Shri Anwar Ahmed, appearing on behalf of Shri N.D. Mantri contends that the trial court has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant and held that be is not the son of deceased Jagdish Narain. It is pointed out that entries in various school certificates clearly show that he is son of Kalyan Bux as mentioned in the certificates. It is, therefore contended that the judgment of the trial court does not call for any interference. 4. I have heard learned both the counsel, gone through the judgment of the trial court as also statements of various witnesses and documents on record. A.W.1 Ganga Sagar respondent has stated in his statement that after death of his mother, his father, deceased Jagdish Narain did marry Shanti Devi and that a son was barn to her. However, he states that 22 years earlier, Shanti Devi left the house of his father and took the child alongwith herself. At that time age of the child was about on year. In cross-examination he states that he does not know whether appellant Pooran is real or adopted son of Kalyan Bux. He also states that Kalyan Bux does not have any other son except Pooran Mal. At that time age of the child was about on year. In cross-examination he states that he does not know whether appellant Pooran is real or adopted son of Kalyan Bux. He also states that Kalyan Bux does not have any other son except Pooran Mal. A.W. 2 Radhey Shyam in cross has stated that it is correct that Kalyan Bux did not have any real son He further states that as Pooran Mal works on the shop of Kalyan Bux, therefore, he thinks that Pooran Mal is son of Kalyan Bux A.W. 3 Gopi Nath has stated in cross-examination that he does not recognise appellant Pooran who is present in the Court. He further states that he had seen the child born to Shanti Devi w/o Jagdish Narain when the child was about 1 or 1/1-2 years. Shanti Devi d/o Kalyan Bux married Jagdish Narain about 26 years age. He further states that he does not know whether Kalyan Bux has any real son. The statement of A.W. 5 Gopi Nathi is also subst intialy on the same lines. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that Ex. 2 is an application for issue of ration card, in which appellant Pooran is shown to be son of Kalyan Bux. This application is signed by Kalyan Bux. Ex. I is family ration card, in which appellant Pooran has been shown as son of Kalyan Bux Ex. 3 is certified copy of voters list of Legislative Assembly for the year 1971, in which also Pooran Mal is shown to be the son of Kalyan Bux Ex. 10 and 11 are the admission forms for the examinations of Secondary School, 1966 and 1967, respectively, in which also Pooran Mal is shown to be son of Kalyan Bux and his date of birth is shown as June 15, 1449. These forms are signed by Pooran Mal himself With these forms, a certificate, dated 8 9.1965 (Ex 12), written by Notary Public, Jaipur, has been filed, in which the name of father of Pooran Mal has been shown as Kalyan Bux and his date of birth has been shown as June 15, 1949. 5. It may be pointed out that Ex. 4 is the original application signed by Kalyan Bux filed for getting the appellant admitted in Shri Digamber Jain Sanskrit College, Jaipur. This has been filed by the respondent. 5. It may be pointed out that Ex. 4 is the original application signed by Kalyan Bux filed for getting the appellant admitted in Shri Digamber Jain Sanskrit College, Jaipur. This has been filed by the respondent. In this application, the name of father of appellant is shown Jagdish Narain, even though name of Kalan is cut out. This document is dated July 22, 1957 I do not find any reason to disbelieve this document which has been produced by the respondent himself, in which the name of the appellant's father has been shown to be Jagdish Narain and not Kalyan Bux. Ex.A. 4 is transfer certificate issue. by Shri Digamber Jain Sanskrit College. Jaipur, on the basis of Ex. 4, in which also the name of father of appellant is shown as Jagdish Narain. This certificate is dated January 31, 1976. Ex. A 7 is register of admission of Shri Digamber Jain Sanskrit College, Jaipur, in which the name of the father of appellant is shown as Jagdish Narain. All these documents clearly indicate that in the School Record the name of the father of the appellant has been shown as Jagdish Narain and that cutting out of the name of Kalyan Bux, from Ex. 4 is of no consequence More over when Ex. 4 has been filed by the respondent himself, he is bound with the entry made therein Ex A. 6 is certified copy of order of Sub-Magistrate, Jaipur, dated 18-3-72. In this case, Kalyan Bux was also one of the parties. The name of appellant Pooran Mal has been shown as party No. 3 and name of his father is shown as Jagdish Narain. This case started earlier than the present litigation was started on March 31, 1975 Ex A. 13 is copy of application filed by respondent Ganga Sagar himself in the court of City Magistrate, Jaipur, in case no. 1243/1969, viz., State v. Kalyan and others under Sections 107/117 Cr. P.C. The respondent himself in this application has shown Pooran Mal appellant to be the son of Jagdish Narain Ex. A.8 is a registered Will, dated July 29, 1960, made by Bala Bux grand father of the parties. This document is admitted by both the parties. In this Will, it is mentioned that deceased Jagdish Narain had two sons, out of which elder one is Ganga Sagar who lives separately from his father. A.8 is a registered Will, dated July 29, 1960, made by Bala Bux grand father of the parties. This document is admitted by both the parties. In this Will, it is mentioned that deceased Jagdish Narain had two sons, out of which elder one is Ganga Sagar who lives separately from his father. This also clearly indicates that deceased Jagdish Narain had two sons and not one as asserted by the respondent. 6. R.W. 2 Gulab Chanel, Principal, Digamber Jain Sanskrit College, has proved documents Ex. A 4 and Ex. A 7, discussed above. Similarly R.W. 3 Nanu Lal clerk of the above college has proved Ex. A. 4 and has stated that all the entries made therein are correct and that the cutting was already there at the time when the application was filed. He also identifies Pooran Mal. R W. 4 Hanuman has identified Pooran Mal and stated that Shanti Devi is the mother of appellant R.W. 5 Gopi Ram has also corroborated the statement of R.W. 4. R.W. 6 Hemraj is father-in-law of appellant Pooran Mal, who has stated that all the ceremonies in connection with the marriage were performed by Jagdish Narain as father of Pooran Mal. R.W. 7 Smt. Lalli who lived with Jagdish Narain for about 4 years, after Shanti Devi left him, has also stated that deceased Jagdish Narain had two sons Ganga Sagar and Pooran Mal. She has stated that she did not see Shanti Devi. She has further stated that Pooran Mal came to Jagdish Narair very frequently and used to stay with him for some time. R. W. 8, is Kalyan Bux, who has stated that appellant is son of deceased Jagdish Narain. R. W. 9 is Bhim Sen. Reader of the Court of City Magistrate, who has proved documents Ex A. 13 and Ex. A. 15. R. W. 10 Ram Swaroop Vaidhya is clerk of Municipal Council, Jaipur, who brought the entry from the birth register of the Municipal Council and has shown that there was no entry in the birth register to show that on June 15, 949, child was born to Kalyan Bux. D W. 11 Ganesh Narain Gupta Advocate has Stated that appellant Pooran Mal is grand-son of (son of his daugther) Kalyan Bux and Kalyan Bux is his Nana. He has also stated that Kalyan Bux has no real son. D W. 11 Ganesh Narain Gupta Advocate has Stated that appellant Pooran Mal is grand-son of (son of his daugther) Kalyan Bux and Kalyan Bux is his Nana. He has also stated that Kalyan Bux has no real son. D.W. 13 Smt. Damodari, daughter of Kalyan Bux has also stated that Pooran Mal is son of deceased Jagdish Narain. 7. It is evident from the evidence, oral and documentary, discussed above that there is over-whelming proof to show that appellant Pooran Mal is son of deceased Jagdish Narain. As discussed above in details the documentary evidence and from the school record Ex. A. 4, Ex A. 7 and Ex. 4, the name of the father of appellant is deceased Jagdish Narain Ex. 4 is a document, which has been produced by the respondent Ganga Sagar himself, therefore, he is bound by the entries made in this document Similarly Ex. A. 13 is an application, dated August 19, 1969, filed by respondent Ganga Sagar, in the Court of City Magistrate, in which he himself describes appellant Pooran Mal to be son of deceased Jagdish Narain. This is, therefore, admission of the respondent himself to the effect that appellant Pooran Mal is son of deceased Jagdish Narain and he is bound by this admission which took place much earlier than the present litigation started on March 31, 1975.In the case of Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others, AIR 1960 SC 100 , it was held by the Apex Court that 'an admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous." 8. I do not find any evidence on record, which may prove these admissions to be erroneous or unreliable. 9. Ex. A. 6 which is also a certified copy of the order of City Magistrate, Jaipur. dated March 18, 1972, in which appellant Pooran Mal is shown to be son of deceased Jagdish Narain. In these proceedings Kalyan Bux was also a party. Merely because Kalyan Bux is said to have shown himself father of appellant Pooran Mal in certain applications filed in School on behalf of appellant but has explained the same in his statement, all the above mentioned over-whelming documentary evidence cannot he ignored and brushed-aside. In these proceedings Kalyan Bux was also a party. Merely because Kalyan Bux is said to have shown himself father of appellant Pooran Mal in certain applications filed in School on behalf of appellant but has explained the same in his statement, all the above mentioned over-whelming documentary evidence cannot he ignored and brushed-aside. The assertion of the respondent that deceased Jagdish Narain had no other sun is also falsified by registered Will, dated 29-7-1960, Ex. A.8, made by Bala Bux, grand-father of both parties, which is the admitted document. It, therefore, becomes certain that deceaseu Jagdish Narain did have another son also and from the evidence discussed above there is no escape but to reach the conclusion that the second son is Pooran Mal, the appellant. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, dated 26-9-1979, is set-aside and the Succession Certificate/Letters of Administration granted in favour of respondent Ganga Sagar is cancelled.No order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******