JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - The substantial question of law in this appeal is whether the Courts below by their concurrent findings committed an error in holding that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred under the provisions of Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. Facts : The plaintiffs mortgaged the suit land with the defendant for Rs. 800/-on 19-11-1969 and delivered possession of the land bearing Khata No. 1354 and Plot No. 164, measuring an area of 70 decimals in village Satapentha. Though the plaintiffs repaid the entire amount within a year, the defendant did not give back the possession of the land but continued to possess the same. A dispute having ensued between the parties, a proceeding u/s 145, Cr PC was instituted in which the final order went in favour of the defendant, holding that he was in actual possession of the land. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed the suit for possession and mesne profits, without seeking any declaration. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that as the said unufructuary mortgage stood automatically redeemed by virtue of the provisions of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act after expiry of a period of seven years, i. e. in the year 1976, by an oral agreement between the two, the defendant continued in possassion of the land as a Bhagchasi and paid Rajbhag to the plaintiffs regularly. This was so agreed since the plaintiffs had to repay sum of Rs. 300/- to the defendant. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs had promised to pay Rs. 300/- by 1980 but did not do so. The defendant demanded the said sum in 1981 and there was some misunderstanding between the parties which resulted in filing of the suit, as alleged by the defendant. The defendant also pleaded in paragraph 8 of the written statement that the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 57 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. 2. The defendant demanded the said sum in 1981 and there was some misunderstanding between the parties which resulted in filing of the suit, as alleged by the defendant. The defendant also pleaded in paragraph 8 of the written statement that the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 57 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. 2. The Courts below considering the defendant's plea of tenancy and his evidence with regard to tenancy and more specifically basing on the admission of the plaintiff No. 1 in his evidence that he (the plaintiff) was the landlord and the defendant was the tenant, held that there was subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the two and, therefore, both held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred u/s 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, there be dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. 3. Mr. B. B. Ratho, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 with reference to the cases, namely, The State of U.P. Vs. Ram Chandra Trivedi, and Most. Sukhia and Another Vs. Took Narain Whish Wakarma and Others, strenuously urged that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with by this Court even if such findings are found to be totally erroneus. There is no quarrel over the proposition so advanced by Mr. Ratho, but law is also well-settled that even concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below can be interfered with provided such findings are based on no evidence or even inadequate evidence which leads the Court to come to a conclusion that the party has not been able to prove his case with that insufficient evidence. Secondly, the Courts below have based the finding about the tenancy in favour of the defendant mainly on the admission of the plaintiff No. 1 in his evidence. Therefore, substantial question of law for decision of this Court is whether on a mere admission by the party, the Court can come to a conclusion that there has been a relationship of landlord and tenant without any other material on record. For the above two reasons, I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Ratho that this Court would not be justified in interfering with the findings so recorded by the Courts below. I would like to first take up the question of the admission in question of the plaintiff No. 1. 4. For the above two reasons, I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Ratho that this Court would not be justified in interfering with the findings so recorded by the Courts below. I would like to first take up the question of the admission in question of the plaintiff No. 1. 4. It is nowhere in the pleadings of the plaintiffs that they had inducted the defendant as a tenant with a view to create an agricultural tenancy in his favour. The mere assertion in the pleadings is that they had borrowed Rs. 800/- from the defendant which though they repaid within a year, the defendant did not deliver back the land in question and has been in such forcible possession till now. This is what the plaintiff No. 1 stated in paragraph 5 of his evidence during cross-examination which has been so much relied on by the Courts below : "Now defendant is the tenant in respect of the suit land. I am the landlord of the suit lands." Just one or two lines thereafter, the plaintiff No. 1 stated as follows ; "It is not a fact that I inducted the defendant as a tenant from the date of my redemption. It is not a fact that the defendant is paying Rajohag out of the suit lands as a tenant under me." At another place he stated : "......I agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- to the defendant and paid it in the year 1980 out of Rs. 800/-." 5. In my view, the tenor of the evidence, as indicated above, would clearly indicate that the same should not have been taken as an admission at all. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this could be said to be an admission, yet it is well settled that in a civil proceeding admission by a party is a material piece of evidence against the person making it. But it is equally well settled that admission is not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and admission would not be binding on the party making it if the facts so admitted turn out to be erroneous or in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the admission so made could be said to have been duly explained (vide Nagubai Ammal and Ors. v. B. Shama Rao and Ors. ; AIR 1956 C 593. v. B. Shama Rao and Ors. ; AIR 1956 C 593. I may examine whether in the present case the admission so made can be said to be erroneous. 6. In Paragraph 4 of the written statement the defendant averred as follows : "The defendant submits that after the termination of the mortgage-deed, the defendant has been continuing as a tenant under the plaintiffs as Bhag Chasi and has been paying Rajabhag to the plaintiffs regularly. After termination of the stipulated period under the mortgage-deed, it was agreed by the plaintiffs that they will o return the mortgage amount of Rs. 800/- to the defendant. The plaintiff could not do so and as per the understanding in between the parties, the defendant was allowed to cultivate the suit land as a tenant under plaintiffs on payment of Rajabhag. The plaintiffs had promised to pay Rs. 300/- to the defendant by 1980 but they did not do so......." This case of the defendant so pleaded would indicate that both agreed that the defendant would cultivate the land as a tenant and this was only after termination of the mortgage automatically by operation of law and this was agreed because the plaintiffs were still obliged to pay the rest amount of Rs. 300'-. This part of the pleading of the defendant has been corroborated by DW 2 who stated in paragraph 2 of his examination in-chief that the defendant asked the plaintiffs for mortgage amount and the plaintiffs told him to cultivate the suit land as a tenant and they would pay Rs. 300/- towords the full satisfaction of the loan in 1980. The witness further stated that from that day the defendant was cultivating the suit land as a tenant in respect of the same and was paying Rajabhag to the plaintiffs in his presence. The pleading of the defendant and the evidence of his own witness conclusively prove the. fact that the defendant was allowed to cultivate the suit land so that the liability of the plaintiffs for payment of Rs. 300/- being the balance amount of the mortgage money could be duly discharged. The plaintiffs nowhere intended to create an agricultural tenancy in favour of the defendant so as to attract the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. 300/- being the balance amount of the mortgage money could be duly discharged. The plaintiffs nowhere intended to create an agricultural tenancy in favour of the defendant so as to attract the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. In such a situation it is difficult to comprehend that by saying that the defendant was a tenant, the plaintiffs in fact created an agricultural tenancy in favour of the defendant. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that since the plaintiffs could not pay the amount of Rs. 300/-, they allowed the defendant to cultivate the suit land. In the above manner, the so-called admission is found to be erroneous. 7. The second point raised by Mr. Ratho is that the evidence on record amply proved the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant stated that after exoiry of the mortgage period (i. e. seven years) as provided under the Orissa Money Lenders Act, he cultivated the suit land as a tenant and was paying Rajbhag to the plaintiffs to the extent of half of the total produce and that he was so inducted for the last four to five years. In paragraph 2 of the examination-in-chief he stated that the plaintiffs agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- out of the loan amount of Rs. 800/- in the year 1980 and he was inducted as a tenant in the year 1977. In the year 1980 the plaintiffs did not return a sum of Rs. 300/- though he had demanded the same. In the cross-examination he stated that since 1969 he was in possession of the land. In paragraph 4 he stated that in presence of (DW 2) the plaintiffs agreed to pay Rs. 300/- and inducted him as a tenant and there was no detailed calculation for the produce from the suit land since 1969. In paragraph 5 he admitted that although he insisted for a Muchalika for such induction as a tenant, the plaintiffs did not agree. In paragraph 6 he admitted the agreement was oral. He catego- rically admitted that after payment of Rs. 300/- he agreed to re-deliver the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs. This admission in the cross-examination of the defendant that he had agreed to re-deliver the possession after the payment of Rs. In paragraph 6 he admitted the agreement was oral. He catego- rically admitted that after payment of Rs. 300/- he agreed to re-deliver the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs. This admission in the cross-examination of the defendant that he had agreed to re-deliver the possession after the payment of Rs. 300/- by the plaintiffs itself strikes at the root of the case of the defendant that in fact the plaintiffs intended to create a tenancy in respect of the suit land. Again in paragraph 7 he stated that he could not say in details in which year what quantity of Rajbhag he had given to the plaintiffs and that .He had not claimed any receipt at the time of payment though towards little thereafter he stated to have given to nauties of Rajbhag last year. This part of the evidence of the defendant it found to be inconsistent with the evidence of his only witness DW 2. DW 2 no doubt stated in examination-in-chief that the defendant was paying Rajbhag in his presence, but in paragraph 7 of the cross-examination he gave an inconsistent statement that the defendant had given 13 nauties of paddy to the plaintiffs in 1969 and 7 nauties of paddy in 197? in his presence. This is a totally incorrect statement and inconsistent with the case as well as the evidence of the defandant that the tenancy was created from 1977 and not in the year 1969 as stated by DW 2. No other witness was examined to corroborate the evidence of the defendant about the payment of Rajbhag to the plaintiffs, and so far as OW 2 is concerned, his evidence with regard to the payment of Rajbhag has to be discarded since the same is found to be contradictory to the evidence of the defendant. For the above reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the finding of the Courts below that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to be erroneous both on fact9 and points of law and is liable to be set aside. 8. Mr. Ratho with reference to the case reported in Thiru John Vs. The Returning Officer and Others, submitted that the admission so made by the plaintiff No. 1 is presumed to be correct unless it has been duly rebutted by any other substantive evidence on record. 8. Mr. Ratho with reference to the case reported in Thiru John Vs. The Returning Officer and Others, submitted that the admission so made by the plaintiff No. 1 is presumed to be correct unless it has been duly rebutted by any other substantive evidence on record. I may point out that question of rebuttal can also be proved from other facts and circumstances of the case. I have already indicated that the admission so made by the plaintiff No. 1, in the facts and circumstances of the given case, was not an admission with a view to create a tenancy in favour of the dafendant, but was an admission that since he was cultivating the suit land and was to so cultivate until the rest part of the mortgage amount, i. e. Rs. 300/- was repaid by them. In this context, the word 'tenant' was used by the plaintiff No. 1. Therefore, these materials on record have sufficiently rebutted the admission so made by the plaintiff No. 1. 9. In the result, the judgments of the Courts below are set aside. The plaintiffs' suit is decreed. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the suit land from the defendant and the said possession be delivered to the plaintiffs by the defendant by the end of February, 199 5. I do not direct payment of mesne profit as claimed by the plaintiffs since from the evidence of the plaintiffs it is clear that they themselves allowed the defendant to cultivate the land. That part of the prayer of the plaintifis is disallowed. Parties to bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed