JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.—These two second appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree of the Court of Shri Jasbir S. Dhaliwal, Additional District Judge, Solan camp at Nalagarh dated 17-3 -1990, whereby he accepted both the appeals against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, i.e. the Court of Shri D.K. Sharma, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Nalagarh dated 14-3-1984. The trial Court decreed the suit Kartara and others v. Ram Chand and others, to the effect that the plaintiff alongwith defendant No. 2 are owners in possession of the suit land and the entries in the revenue record are illegal, null and void and a decree for permanent injunction has also been granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant No.1. Consequently, the suit Bachna v. Ram Chand and others was dismissed. 2. In appeal, the learned lower appellate Court set aside the decree passed in the suit of Bachna and the said suit was decreed as prayed for, whereas the decree in the other suit Kartara v. Ram Chand etc. was set aside and the suit has been dismissed, giving rise to the present second appeals 3. Briefly, tie facts are that Bachna filed a suit on 11-1-1984 and Kartara and Gurbaxa tiled another suit on 14-31984. Both these suits were consolidated by the learned trial Court and tried together, subject matter being the same in both the suits. The subject matter of dispute is the land measuring 4 Bighas 17 Biswas comprised in Khasra No.54, Khewat No. 2, Khatauni No. 2, situated in Village Plassi Nathu, Pargna Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, as shown in jamabandi for the year 1977-78, It was claimed that the suit land was in lieu of land measuring 8 Bighas 17 Biswas comprised in Khewat No. 46 Khatauni No.3 to 5 after consolidation proceedings Ram Chand was the original in owner, who had mortgaged it with possession with three brothers, namely Bachna, Kartara and Gurbaxa for a sum of Rs 250 as usufructuary mortgage. Bachua claimed that in the year s952 the land was redeemed by Shri Ram Chand and thereafter he purchased it, whereas defendants No. 2 and 3 i.e. Kartara and Gurbaxa have claimed that the land was never redeemed by said Ram Chand. Bachua claimed that in the year s952 the land was redeemed by Shri Ram Chand and thereafter he purchased it, whereas defendants No. 2 and 3 i.e. Kartara and Gurbaxa have claimed that the land was never redeemed by said Ram Chand. Bachna claimed that the land was hold to him by Ram Chand for a sum of Rs 600 by way of oral sale on 16-6-1952, which was duly entered in the Roznamcha of the Patwari y after mortgage was redeemed by the mortgagor earlier on the same day. He claimed that he had thus continued to be in possession of the suit land as owner after 6-6-1952, but due to collusion between the defendants, a mutation of redemption was rejected by the revenue authorities. He claimed that the defendants had admitted him to be in exclusive possession of land by their act and conduct In the alternative, he claimed that he had become owner of the land by adverse possession being in exclusive possession to the exclusion of defendants No. 2 and 3 and that the defendants No. 2 and 3 had admitted him to be owner in possession before the Revenue Officer in the redemption proceedings titled Ram Chand v. Bachna etc decided on 24-7-1961. It was further claimed that the entries showing Ram Chand, to be the owner and his brothers as mortgagees were wrong and not binding on his rights. He further sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit land praying in the alternative for a decree of possession, ia case he is found not to be in possession. 4. Defendant No. 1 Ram Chand contested the suit disputing the identity of the land and claiming that the land was not mortgaged by him in the year 1950 with his three brothers out on 19-9-1-61, He denied the claim of the plaintiff to be owner in possession, rather he claimed himself to be the owner and he was at liberty to file a suit for redemption. Defendants No. 2 and 3 claimed that the land was never redeemed on 6-6-1952 and it was never sold to the plantiff nor they had received the mortgage amount, as claimed by the plaintiff. Defendants No. 2 and 3 claimed that the land was never redeemed on 6-6-1952 and it was never sold to the plantiff nor they had received the mortgage amount, as claimed by the plaintiff. They claimed to have become owners of the suit land as the land had remained under mortgage with them for a period of more than 30 years. 5. The suit filed by Kartara and Gurbaxa, is with the same pleadings which they took as defendants No. 2 and 3 in the suit filed by Bachna 6. The learned trial Court framed the following issues in suit titled Bachna v. Ram Chand and others : "1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land by way of sale, as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land by way of non-redemption of the suit land with them, as alleged ? OPP. 3. If Issue No. 1 and 2 are not proved whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as alleged ? OPD 4. Whether the suit land was mortgaged in the year 1961, as alleged ? If so, its effect ? OPD (1). 5. Whether the defendants No. 2 and 3 are in joint possession as owners of the suit land, as alleged ? OPD (2 and 3) 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendants No. 2 and 3 ? OPD (2 and 3). 7. Relief." 7. In the civil suit titled Kartara and others v. Ram Chand and another, the following issues were framed by the trial Court : “1. Whether the defendant No. 1 mortgaged the suit land with plaintiffs and defendant No. 2, as alleged ? OPP. 2. if Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 have become the owners of the suit land by lapse of time, as alleged ? OPP. 3. Whether defendant No 2 has become exclusive owner of the suit land by way of sale, as alleged ? OPD (2). 4. If Issue No. 3 is not proved in affirmative, whether the defendant No. 2 has become owner of the suit land by way ot adverse possession ? OPD (2). 5. Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 are estopped by their acts and conduct, as alleged ? OPD (1). 6. Relief." 8. OPD (2). 4. If Issue No. 3 is not proved in affirmative, whether the defendant No. 2 has become owner of the suit land by way ot adverse possession ? OPD (2). 5. Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 are estopped by their acts and conduct, as alleged ? OPD (1). 6. Relief." 8. The trial Court held that there was no oral sale by Ram Chand in favour of Bachna and that the plaintiff alongwith his brothers Kartara and Gurbuxa were mortgagees in joint possession of the suit land and had become joint owners of the suit land He found the mortgage to have been created in the year 1950 and not in the year 1961 as claimed by Ram Chand. The trial Court decreed the suit of Kartara and others for a declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land alongwith Bachna and that the entries in the revenue record were illegal and void. A decree for permanent injunction was also granted. The suit of Bachna was dismissed by the trial Court. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. It has been submitted by Shri Deepak Gupta that in the documents Ex PW-3/C and Ex PW-3/D, the presence of Gurbuxa plaintiff has not been shown anywhere inasmuch as he has neither signed or thumb marked the same In Ex. PW-3/C there is an acknowledgment vide his thumb impression that on 9-6-1952 Ram Chand S/O Laxman of Gujjar community gave a statement that the suit land had been mortgaged with Bachna, Gurbuxa and Kartara SS/O Harnama after tendering the amount to Bachna etc , he has got redeemed the same. Bachna etc, acknowledged the relinquishment of the same. 10. In Ex PW-3/D, the recital is that on the same date, i.e. 9-6-1952, Ram Chand S/o Lachhman of Gujjar community gave a statement that the other part of the suit land had been sold to Bachna S/o Harnama and had also been given the possession of the same Mutation No nil’ had also been entered into in the relevant register. In Ex PW-3/D, the recital is that on the same date, i.e. 9-6-1952, Ram Chand S/o Lachhman of Gujjar community gave a statement that the other part of the suit land had been sold to Bachna S/o Harnama and had also been given the possession of the same Mutation No nil’ had also been entered into in the relevant register. Both the documents are neither thumb marked nor signed either by Gurbuxa or Kartara plaintiffs, That being the position they are not bound by the same and, therefore, the factum of the mortgage having been redeemed from them has not been proved by Ram Chand Similarly, the sale by Ram Chand in favour of Bachna vide Ex PW-3/D.has not been proved because the plaintiff neither thumb marked nor signed the same In this connection, a perusal of the judgment of the learned Lower appellate Court shows that Ram Chand had moved an application for redemption, on which mutation No 6 was entered in the year 1961 All the three brothers had filed a written reply to this, one of such replies has been proved on record as Ex PW-8/B. The trial Court negatived the plea of Bachna that the land was ever redeemed. In this connection, the learned Lower appellate Court has cited a reported decision of the Apex Court to the effect that admission of a party is substantive evidence, even through the party was not confronted by such statement provided such admissions are clear when they are to be used against the person making them These admissions may not be conclusive of the matter considered but are substantive evidence. It is not important whether the party who made the admission is confronted with the same or not but such admissions can be made basis for deriving conclusions to see whether a particular fact stands proved or not. 11. Applying the test laid down by the Apex Court to the present case, the learned lower appellate Court has held that in view of the corroborative evidence, which has been proved as Ex. PW-3/C the land has been redeemed by Ram Chand as per the admissions of the three brothers. This finding of the lower appellate Court, with due respect to him, is wrong. Both Gurbaxa and Kartara neither thumb marked nor signed the documents in question, as already mentioned above. PW-3/C the land has been redeemed by Ram Chand as per the admissions of the three brothers. This finding of the lower appellate Court, with due respect to him, is wrong. Both Gurbaxa and Kartara neither thumb marked nor signed the documents in question, as already mentioned above. Therefore, the trial had rightly declined to rely on this entry on the ground that this has neither been signed nor thumb marked 12. As regards the oral sale, the learned lower Appellate Court has relied on document Ext. PW-3/D a report No. 324 dated 6 6-1952, which is 30 years old and there being no allegation of any forgery having been made, would carry a presumption under section 90 of the Evidence Act Here again, the same yardstick will apply i.e. neither this document has been signed nor thumb marked. The lower Court has wrongly relied on this oral sale, whereas the said plaintiffs Kartara and Gurbaxa never acknowledged the sale by thumb marking or signing Ex- PW-3/D. The learned Counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that in view of the decision of the Apex Court, the plaintiffs are bound by their statements. The question is where are those statements. In the absence of thumb marking or signing by any one of them, no recital in the above two documents, namely Ex. PW-3/C and PW 3/D can be binding on them. Therefore, the authority of the Apex Court, referred to above, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. No other point has been urged nor any arises for consideration. In these two appeals. 14. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court passed in the said two suits are reversed and those of the trial Court are hereby restored. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.