JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This Second Appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 12.3.1998 and 18.3.1998 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Darrang in Money Appeal No. 2/1996 affirming the judgment and decree dated 7.2.1996 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Darrang in Money Suit No. 1/94. 2. The suit was instituted by the Respondent/Plaintiff. The facts leading to the filing of the suit is that the Respondent-Plaintiff had a "Kirloskar" power pump set and he used to let out the same on rent. The Appellants-Defendant approached him for hiring the same and accordingly, an oral agreement was entered into between the parties for use of the power pump on hire at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day. The power pump was used by the Appellants-Defendant from 20.12.91 to 30.9.93 for a total period of 645 days. The Respondent-Plaintiff submitted a bill for Rs. 32,250/- On refusal of the Defendant Appellants to honour the bill the Plaintiff Respondent instituted the suit for realization. 3. The learned Assistant District Judge, Darrang decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff Respondent. Being aggrieved, the Appellants Defendant preferred Money Appeal No. 2/96. However, the same was also dismissed affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Court below. Hence this Second Appeal assailing the legality and validity of the aforesaid judgment and decree. 4. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether the learned Court below has committed error in splitting up the facts of the written statement and particularly relying the same which is submitted on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, which is against the principle of law and as such the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside? 5. The learned Court below on the basis of the pleadings of the parties formulated the following issues: 1) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 3) Whether the suit is barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? 4) Whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement to let out the power pump of the Plaintiff to the Defendant on hire basis at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day? 2) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 3) Whether the suit is barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? 4) Whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement to let out the power pump of the Plaintiff to the Defendant on hire basis at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day? 5) Whether the Defendant used the power pump of the Plaintiff from 20.12.91 to 30.9.93 on hire basis at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day and an amount of Rs. 32,250/- became due? 6) Whether the power pump was badly damaged and the Defendant got it repaired on their own costs and used the same with due consent of the Plaintiff without any agreement for payment of daily hire? 7) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from the Defendant as prayed for? 8) To what relief, if any, the parties are entitled? 6. The main issues i.e. issue Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were taken up together for decision and all the issues were decided in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent. The learned Court below found that the hiring of the pump by the Defendant Appellants was an admitted position and that there was no written agreement of contract for the same. According to the Plaintiff Respondent and his witnesses, the Manager of the Plaintiff's Tea Estate had an oral agreement with the Plaintiff Respondent for use of the power pump at Rs. 50/- per day for the period from 20.12.91 to 30.1.93. The statement of the Plaintiff Respondent (P.W.-1) found to be not denied by the witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant Appellants. The learned Court below found that as per the evidence of the D.W.-1 the power pump was used for about 15 days. D.W.-2 did not say anything regarding the use of the pump. However, the D.W.-3, the then Manager of the Tea Estate in his evidence stated that the power was used by the Tea Estate for about 7 to 10 days. The learned Court below found that in the written statement, the Defendant Appellants stated that the power pump was used for a temporary period. 7. However, the D.W.-3, the then Manager of the Tea Estate in his evidence stated that the power was used by the Tea Estate for about 7 to 10 days. The learned Court below found that in the written statement, the Defendant Appellants stated that the power pump was used for a temporary period. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings and the evidence and the categorical assertion on the part of the Plaintiff-Respondent that the power pump was used from 20.12.91 to 30.9.93 and that the statement of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant-Appellants were not specific, the learned Court below answered the issues in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent. 8. As regards the plea of the Defendant Appellants that there was no agreement for payment of Rs. 50/- per day towards use of the pump set, the learned Court below held that nobody would allow a power pump to be used without any charge more particularly, when the Plaintiff-Respondent was a poor Tea garden labourer. Thus on the basis of the evidence relating to the use of the power pump by the Defendant-Appellants, the learned court below decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent. 9. The learned court below also dealt with the plea that the power pump belonging to the Plaintiff Respondent was not in serviceable condition and that the same was made serviceable by the Defendant Appellants by way of repairing the same in their own workshop. The trial Court found that the Plaintiff Respondent in his evidence clearly stated that the power pump was in good condition and the same was used by the Defendant Appellants. As regards the plea of the Defendant Appellants that the power pump was repaired by them, the learned trial Court noticed that no documentary proof was adduced in support of such a plea. According to the Defendant Appellants they had their own pump set and the same went wrong which made them to hire the pump from the Plaintiff Respondent. The trial Court dealt with that aspect of the matter and recorded its finding to the effect that the story made out by the Defendant Appellants was not believable in as much as instead of hiring a damaged pump from the Plaintiff Respondent they would have rather repaired their own pump set. 10. The trial Court dealt with that aspect of the matter and recorded its finding to the effect that the story made out by the Defendant Appellants was not believable in as much as instead of hiring a damaged pump from the Plaintiff Respondent they would have rather repaired their own pump set. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis of the evidence on record the learned trial Court recorded its finding in favour of the Plaintiff Respondent and decreed the suit. 11. The first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court upon evaluation of the evidence on records and the findings recorded by the trial Court. It found that witnesses examined by the Plaintiff Respondent clearly proved his case It also found that the Defendant Appellants did not deny the fact of using the pump for a temporary period. It also found that the power pump was kept in the workshop of the Defendant Appellants for a long time after its use. The suggestion made on behalf of the Defendant Appellants that the power pump was kept at the workshop at the instance of the Plaintiff Respondent was not borne on evidence. The period of use of the pump by the Defendant Appellants was found to be not in dispute although such period was said to be a temporary period by the witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/Appellants. On the basis of such evaluation of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, the first appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 12.3.98 and 18.3.98 respectively in Money Appeal No. 2 of 1996. 12. It is in the aforesaid back drop, the instant Second Appeal has been filed on which the aforesaid substantial question of law was framed at the time of admitting the appeal. 13. I have heard Mr. B.K. Ghose, learned senior counsel for the Defendant Appellants and Mr. M. Sarania, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Respondent. 14. Mr. Goswami submitted that both the Courts below totally ignored the established principle of law that a particular admission made in the written statement cannot be split up and a part of it used against him and that such admission must be used either as a whole or not at all. M. Sarania, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Respondent. 14. Mr. Goswami submitted that both the Courts below totally ignored the established principle of law that a particular admission made in the written statement cannot be split up and a part of it used against him and that such admission must be used either as a whole or not at all. He found fault with the findings recorded by the Courts below on the basis of the statements made by the Defendant/Appellants in their written statement on the ground that the Courts below relied on a part of the written statement and ignored the other part. 15. Mr. M. Sarania, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent on the other hand submitted that there being concurrent findings of both the Courts below on the factual aspect of the matter, there is no ground to interfere with such findings recorded by both the Courts below. As regards the splitting up of plea in the written statement, Mr. Sarania submitted that irrespective of the stand of the Defendant/Appellants as regards their plea in statement, when the evidences are overwhelming to bring home the claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and decree. 16. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the records. Both the Courts below recorded in categorical terms of its findings on the basis of the evidence on record that the power pump in question was hired by the Defendant/Appellants. As against the Defendant Appellants that the use of the power pump was for a temporary period, both the Courts below found that the same was used for the period as claimed by the Plaintiff/Respondent. It is true that there was no written contract by and between the parties but there was only an oral agreement. However, both the Courts below found that the Plaintiff/Respondent could establish his case of hiring the power pump by the Defendant/Appellants. 17. Dealing with the plea of Defendant/Appellants that the power pump was taken from the Plaintiff Respondent on condition of repairing the same and that there was no agreement for payment of any money for the use of the same, the learned trial Court found that the Defendant/Appellants had hired the power pump from the Plaintiff/Respondent on the ground that their own power pump become unserviceable. If that be so, it is not understood as to why the Defendant/Appellants instead of repairing their own pump set had gone for hiring yet another un-serviceable power pump belonging to the Plaintiff/Respondent. It is upon such reasoning and finding which cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence, the learned Court below answered the relevant issues in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent. 18. Much have been said and argued as regards splitting up of the pleas raised in the written statements and it is on that basis, the substantial question of law was framed while admitting the instant appeal. I have gone through the written statement. The Defendant/Appellants in their written statement have admitted that they used the pump for a very temporary period, however, without specified the period. They also admitted in their written statement: that the Plaintiff/Respondent had in his possession a Kirloskar pump but the same was in a badly damaged condition and lying idle. According to the stand in the written statement the pump set was repaired by the Defendant/Appellants and that they were in need of temporary use of the same. As a substantial money was required to repair the pump and the Plaintiff Respondent was not in a position to spend the amount, it was verbally agreed upon that the Defendant would make use of the same by bearing the expenditure for repairing the pump set. Thus it was the case of the Defendant/Appellants in the written statement that the Plaintiff/Respondent allowed the use of the pump in lieu of making the same serviceable at the cost of the Defendant Appellants and that there was no any oral agreement for payment of any rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day. 19. According to the Defendant/Appellants, both the courts below missed the aforesaid specific plea of the Defendant/Appellants relating to the condition of the use of the pump set and unnecessarily relied upon the case of the Plaintiff/Respondent. 50/- per day. 19. According to the Defendant/Appellants, both the courts below missed the aforesaid specific plea of the Defendant/Appellants relating to the condition of the use of the pump set and unnecessarily relied upon the case of the Plaintiff/Respondent. According to the Defendant/Appellants, both the Courts below while referring to the stand in the written statement and holding that the Defendant/Appellants admitted the use of the power pump set for a temporary period failed to deal with the further stand in the written statement that such use of the pump was only on condition of repairing the same incurring the expenditure by the Defendant/Appellants and that there was no any agreement for payment of any rate at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day. 20. I have considered the aforesaid plea of the Defendant/Appellants. The use of the pump set by the Defendant/Appellants is not in dispute. As against the specification of the period by the Defendant/Appellants as temporary, the Plaintiff/Respondent could establish the period of use of the pump by the Defendant/Appellants for a specific period mentioning the dates. Both the courts below found on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff/ and the Defendant that the use of the pump set by the Defendant Appellants for the specific period as claimed by the Plaintiff Respondent to be correct. Such findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless a case of perversity and or no evidence is made out. In the instant case, the Defendant/Appellants have not been able to show anything that the findings recorded by the courts below are in any way perverse and or based on no evidence. 21. It is true that the Defendant/Appellants in their written statement while admitting the fact of making use of the pump for a temporary period denied such use on condition of payment of any rent upon agreement. It was their pleaded case that such use of the pump was in lieu of repairing the pump set incurring the expenditure by themselves. However, nothing could be proved by adducing any evidence to substantiate their claim. It is in this context, the learned court below observed about the fallibility of the plea of the Defendant/Appellants that the action for hiring the damaged pump set from the Plaintiff/Respondent had arisen in view of the damage to their own pump set. However, nothing could be proved by adducing any evidence to substantiate their claim. It is in this context, the learned court below observed about the fallibility of the plea of the Defendant/Appellants that the action for hiring the damaged pump set from the Plaintiff/Respondent had arisen in view of the damage to their own pump set. The learned court below disbelieved the plea on the sound analogy that had that been the case, the Defendant/Appellants would not have gone for a damaged pump set for use of the same after repairing instead of repairing their own pump set. Nothing could be proved by the Defendant/Appellants to substantiate their claim that the pump set hired from the Plaintiff/Respondent was repaired by them. 22. It is on evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent that the pump set in question was hired from him at a daily rent of Rs. 50/-. The Plaintiff/Respondent also could establish his case relating to duration of use of the pump set by the Defendant/Appellants. It is in that context, the learned court below observed that the story made out by the Defendant/Appellants was unbelievable in as much as no owner of a pump set would part with the same without anything in return. 23. The plea of the Defendant/Appellants that the courts below have decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent upon splitting up of the pleas raised in the written statement and that the plea raised in the written statement could either be accepted as a whole or not at all on the basis of which the aforesaid substantial question of law was framed while admitting the instant appeal falls through. The plea raised in the written statement will have to be judged on the basis of the substantiation or otherwise of the same. Both the courts below while dealing with the admission of the use of the pump set by the Defendant/Appellants as made out in the written statement, also dealt with the evidence on record to deal with the other part of the story made out by the Defendant/Appellants in their written statement. Upon evaluation of the evidences on record and returning the findings on that basis, both the courts below answered the issues in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent. 24. Upon evaluation of the evidences on record and returning the findings on that basis, both the courts below answered the issues in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent. 24. On perusal of the judgment of both the courts below, it is apparent that they extensively dealt with the evidence adduced by the parties for deciding the issues on which the parties went to trial. They reflected conscious application of mind and recording of finding supported by reasons on all the issues. The substantial question of law, as has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari as reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179 , must have foundation in the pleadings and should emerge from sustainable findings of fact reached by court of facts and further an answer to such question must be necessary for a just and proper decision of the case. In the instant case, both the courts below reached a particular finding of facts on the basis of the evidence on record. Nothing could be shown that such findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and or based on no evidence. 25. For the foregoing reasons and discussions I am of the full agreement with the findings recorded by the both the courts below and accordingly I have no hesitation to hold that the Second Appeal is devoid of any merit. The substantial question of law as was formulated at the time of admitting the appeal is answered accordingly. 26. The Second Appeal stands dismissed affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.3.98 and 18.3.98 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Darrang in Money Appeal No. 2/96 affirming the judgment and decree dated 7.2.96 of the Assistant District Judge, Darrang in Money Suit No. 1/94. 27. The Registry shall send back the records of the case to the court below after observing necessary formalities. There shall be no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed