JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - The plaintiff has been non-suited by the Courts below and it will be proper for me to reproduce para 12 of the judgment of the first appellate Court :- "The law on the admission, is well settled, that admission is the conclusive and binding on the partly making it, unless it is shown that the said admission, was erroneously made. In the present case, there is no dispute between the parties that after of the plaintiff earlier filed a civil suit for possession against the father of the defendant, Gurjit Singh and Kartar Singh father of Munsha Singh claiming that they had encroached upon the property in dispute, and injunction was also sought for restraining the said defendants, from raising construction over the property in dispute and the said suit was withdrawn by Chanan Singh, father of the plaintiff on 15.10.19422 and the suit was dismissed under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC. The defendant has placed on record, certified copies of the proceedings of the said case as Ex. D-1 and D-2 and D-3 along with its Punjabi translation. On the other hand, the plaintiff does not deny the filing of the earlier suit by his father nor the plaintiff led any evidence, to show that the said admission in the pleadings, by the father of the plaintiff, regarding possession of Gurdit Singh predecessor-in-interest of the defendant and that of Kartar Singh, was erroneously made. Therefore, the admission, in the earlier suit regarding possession of predecessor-in- interest of the defendant and that of Kartar Singh, would bind the parties to the present suit, as they are successors-in-interest and the property in dispute in the said case and the present case is also the same. The plaintiff, however, did not make any mention of the said previous litigation, between the predecessor-in-interest of the parties and the decision thereon and rather in replication claimed that the said litigation pertained to different property, which he failed to show while leading evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff having suppressed the material facts, is not entitled to any discretionary relief of injunction. Therefore, the plaintiff having suppressed the material facts, is not entitled to any discretionary relief of injunction. Furthermore, the possession of defendant Surjan Singhs predecessors and Katar Singh would be deemed to have been admitted on behalf of the plaintiff, because of the earlier litigation and the plaintiff did not plead any circumstance, under which the plaintiff or his father ever got possession from Gurdit Singh and Kartar Singh. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to show that he or his father ever remained in exclusive possession of the property in dispute. So far as the oral testimony of the PWs and the part of the cross- examination of the DWs referred by the learned counsel for the appellant, to show the existence of door underneath the stair case, towards the property in dispute, is concerned, the said part of the oral testimony of the witnesses of the parties cannot change the fate of the case, which is sealed because of the admission of the precedessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, regarding possession of Gurdit Singh and Kartar Singh, over the property in dispute." The reading of the above would show that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff in some civil litigation admitted the possession of predecessor-in- interest of the defendant and one Kartar Singh. It is not established on record under what circumstances, the possession was ever delivered to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunction prayed for. Both the Courts have rightly decided the issue against the plaintiff. No merit. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.