JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri Sankatha Rai and Sri Purshottam Upadhyay, learned Counsels for the appellants and Smt. Swati Agrawal Advocate for the contesting respondents. 2. Second appeal No. 229 of 2007 arises out of original suit No. 96 of 1987, Baij Nath & Ors. v. Sonmati & Anr., which was dismissed on 1-10-1991 by the Additional Munsif Mohammadabad, Ghazipur. Civil appeal No. 242 of 1991, Baij Nath Ram & Ors. v. Sonmati & Anr., was preferred against the aforesaid judgment. 3. Second appeal No. 230 of 2007 arises out of Civil Suit No. 88 of 1987, Ramesh Bhar and Sonmati v. Baij Nath and Ram Chandar, which was decreed, against which regular appeal was filed vide Civil Appeal No. 243 of 1991, Baij Nath Bhar v. Ramesh Bhar & Ors. Both the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 12-9-2006. Common evidence was led in both the cases as such both the second appeals are being decided together. 4. Record was summoned before the appeals were admitted, an interim order was granted in favour of the appellants. The suit instituted by the contesting respondents was for a decree for demolition against the appellants and for removal of unauthorized construction situated over the land shown by letters CDEFG and to restore the land to its original position. The relief claimed in the suit instituted by the appellants was for grant of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering and demolishing the constructions standing over the land in question. 5. Record is available. Both the appeal are heard and as agreed between the respective Counsels, the appeals are decided finally the stage of admission. 6. Before proceeding to decide the appeals, the substantial questions of law on which learned Counsels addressed the Court, are enumerated herein below : "A. Whether the plaintiffs’ suit for perpetual injunction was proved by the own admission of the defendant No. 1 Smt. Sonmati which is the best evidence which the plaintiffs can rely upon, but the Courts below have ignored same altogether ? B. Whether the Courts below have ignored the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1956 SC 364 (at page 382) and AIR 1977 SC 174, while dealing with the admission of the defendant No. 2 Smt. Sonmati who herself admitted the plaintiffs’ title and possession over the disputed land ?’ 7. B. Whether the Courts below have ignored the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1956 SC 364 (at page 382) and AIR 1977 SC 174, while dealing with the admission of the defendant No. 2 Smt. Sonmati who herself admitted the plaintiffs’ title and possession over the disputed land ?’ 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants at the very outset placed two plaint maps in the two suits, one at the instance of the appellants to demonstrate that the disputed construction was on the eastern side. This is the own admission of Smt. Sonmati, which also stands substantiated by report and also the map prepared by Commissioner dated 16-1-1990. Learned Counsel has placed the statement of Smt. Sonmati to demonstrate that she has clearly and unequivocally admitted that the disputed constructions were in front of her door situated on the eastern side. The argument is that there can be no evidence better than the own admission of the respondents, the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse, illegal and liable to be set at naught. In support of his argument, learned Counsel after placing the statement of Sonmati and Commissioner’s report has cited certain decisions of the Apex Court, Nagubai Ammal & Ors. v. B. Shama Rao & Ors., AIR 1956 SC 593 , Thiru John v. Returning Officer & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1724 and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 526 . Learned Counsel has tried to emphasize that the Apex Court has ruled in all the aforesaid decisions that it is settled law that a party’s admission if clearly and unequivocally made, is the best evidence against the party making it though not conclusive, shifts the onus of proof on the maker of such admission on the principle that “what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so and until presumption is rebutted the fact admitted must be taken to be established” and therefore, an ejectment suit can only succeed on the strength of own title which can be done by adducing sufficient evidence. Learned Counsel has placed extract of statement where Smt. Sonmati has admitted that the constructions were on the land on the eastern side of the door of her house. Learned Counsel has placed extract of statement where Smt. Sonmati has admitted that the constructions were on the land on the eastern side of the door of her house. The emphasis of the learned Counsel is that this admission stands substantiated by report of Commissioner and map prepared by him and, therefore, the Courts could not deny the relief claimed by the appellants. 8. Mrs. Swati Agrawal has forcefully countered the arguments of the Counsel for the appellants. Her first submission is that learned Counsel for the appellants has placed only few sentences of the statement of the respondent Smt. Sonmati, piecemeal evidence cannot be read. In fact the entire statements should have been placed by him and then a conclusion could be arrived at whether there is an unequivocal admission on the part of the witness or not. The Counsel for the respondents has read the entire statements, examination-in-chief as well as her cross-examination to exhibit that there is no admission on her part accepting the claim of the appellants. In fact she has clearly stated at the outset in her examination-in-chief that the door is constructed on the southern-eastern side and the illegal ‘Naad’ and ‘Charan’ has been erected by the appellant infront of the said door. She has also placed Commissioner’s report submitted in Second Appeal No. 230 of 2007 arising out of original suit No. 88 of 1987. The new constructions were adjoining the southern door situated at a distance of one Kari and it was constructed only 4-5 days before the Commissioner had made inspection. It was reported that the plasters appear to be absolutely new. In view of complete statements of Sonmati and Commissioner’s report which was contrary to the Commissioner’s report relied upon by the Counsel for the appellants, the contention of the Counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. 9. Mrs. Swati Agrawal has also argued that assuming though not admitting that there was some statement on behalf of Smt. Sonmati which can be read to be an admission on the part of Sonmati even then the decisions relied upon by the Counsel for the appellants is of no help. 9. Mrs. Swati Agrawal has also argued that assuming though not admitting that there was some statement on behalf of Smt. Sonmati which can be read to be an admission on the part of Sonmati even then the decisions relied upon by the Counsel for the appellants is of no help. In all the decisions of the Apex Court cited above, the principles laid down is that if there is such an admission then it will only amount to be a piece of evidence and weight to be attached to such evidence must depend on the circumstances on which it is made. Besides, it cannot be said that it was unequivocal and clear admission and it is conclusive evidence. Evidence has been led by both the parties and, therefore, significance of burden of proof looses its importance when both the parties lead evidence. Mrs. Swati Agrawal has placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Invest Import, AIR 1981 SC 2085 and Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi & Ors., AIR 1960 SC 100 . It was held that Section 101 and 104 of the Evidence Act, relates to burden of proof, meaning thereby where two contesting parties have led evidence, the burden of proof would assume secondary importance. She has also placed the statement of Baij Nath in support of her argument. 10. After hearing the respective Counsels at length and going through the entire record and citations, it is true that the appellants have lost the suit and the appeal from the two Courts. The findings have been arrived at concurrently after appraisal of evidence and the Courts were of the view that the constructions made by the appellants are situated on the land of the respondents and amounts to an illegal construction and encroachment and liable to be removed, I have also tried to compare two Commissioner’s report as well as scrutinize the statements of the witnesses and I am not in agreement with the submissions of the Counsel for the appellants that there was an unequivocal and clear admission on the part of the respondent. The appeal is against two concurrent findings of fact after appraisal of evidence which cannot be interfered in the instant second appeals. The substantial question of law raised in these appeals are factual in nature. The appeal is against two concurrent findings of fact after appraisal of evidence which cannot be interfered in the instant second appeals. The substantial question of law raised in these appeals are factual in nature. The statement of Smt. Sonmati will not amount to an admission to the detriment of her case set up in the suit and cannot be read against her. The substantial questions of law in the instant second appeals has no force. The jurisdiction in a second appeal cannot be extended for reappraisal of evidence. Though I have tried to examine the statements, Commissioner’s report as well as compare it and I do not think that it calls for interference in the second appeal. Besides the substantial questions of law raised are too farfetched, what to say of being substantial in nature. The Apex Court in the recent case of Santosh Hazari v. Purshottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 , ruled that a point of law which admits of no two opinions may be preposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be ‘substantial’ a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, in so far as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. It will therefore, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case whether a question of law is substantial one and involved in the case, or not ? The same view has been expressed by the Apex Court in the cases of Rajeshwari v. Puran Indoria, (2005) 7 SCC 60 and Govinda Raju v. Mariamman, (2005) 2 SCC 500 . 11. In the instant case, the two Courts below have meticulously examined the oral as well as documentary evidence and arrived at a definite conclusion. The grounds and substantial question of law raised in these appeals are only in respect of certain excerpts of statement of Sonmati and that in view of the decisions of the Apex Court relied by the appellants to be an admission. I do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel in my opinion. I am convinced that no substantial question of law worth consideration arises. 12. I do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel in my opinion. I am convinced that no substantial question of law worth consideration arises. 12. In view of what has been stated above, I am not inclined to interfere in the present second appeals in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100, C.P.C. The appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed with cost. ————