JUDGEMENT 1. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19-08-1994, passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Sidhi in Civil Appeal No.8-A/1992 allowing the appeal of defendant and thereby setting aside the judgment dated 04-04-1990 and decree dated 09-04-1990, passed by learned III Civil Judge Class-II, Sidhi in Civil Suit No.15-A/1989, decreeing the suit of plaintiff/appellant. 2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to say that a suit for declaration that plaintiff is the Bhumiswami of Survey No.2630 (old No.2697) area 1.85 acres and the registered sale-deed dated 06-06-1988 executed by second and third defendants in favour of first defendant is null and void against the plaintiff and in the alternative, it has been prayed that the plaintiff be declared Bhumiswami of Survey No.380 (old No.330) area 2.85 acres and the possession thereof be also delivered to him. 3. In the plaint, it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that he is Bhumiswami of Survey No.2630 area 1.85 acres, and this land was given to him in exchange by Suryadeen who was the predecessor of second and third defendants and in exchange, plaintiff gave his third land Survey No.380, area 2.85 acres to said Suryadeen and thus, plaintiff is the Bhumiswami of Survey No.2630. According to the plaintiff, Survey No.380, which he gave in exchange to said Suryadeen, was given to him by the then Ilakedar by executing a Patta in Samwat 1998 (corresponding year 1941) and thus, he became Bhumiswami of the Survey No.380. However, the said land was given by plaintiff in exchange to predecessor of defendants No.2 and 3 namely; Suryadeen who in exchange gave the suit land Survey No.2630 to the plaintiff. But defendant No.2 and 3 illegally sold it to first defendant Lalji vide registered sale-deed dated 06-06-1988. Hence it has been prayed by the plaintiff that the suit of plaintiff be decreed by declaring him to be Bhumiswami having possession over Survey No.2630 and the sale-deed dated 06-06-1988 be declared null and void. Alternatively, relief has been claimed that in case the transaction of exchange is not found to be proved, then plaintiff may be declared Bhumiswami of Survey No.380 area 2.85 acres and the possession thereof be also given to him. 4. Alternatively, relief has been claimed that in case the transaction of exchange is not found to be proved, then plaintiff may be declared Bhumiswami of Survey No.380 area 2.85 acres and the possession thereof be also given to him. 4. The first defendant filed written-statement and denied the plaint averments, defendant no.2 did not file any written-statement, however, defendant no.3, Rajeev Lochan, who is the successor of Suryadeen filed a separate written-statement and specifically admitted the averments made in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the plaint to be true. However, other pleadings of the plaintiff has been denied in the written-statement filed by him. The first defendant who is a purchaser from defendants no.2 and 3 also denied the averments made in the plaint. 5. The learned Trial Court after framing necessary issues recorded the evidence of the parties and decreed the suit of plaintiff in toto including the alternative relief which the plaintiff sought. The second and third defendants did not prefer any appeal although first defendant/respondent filed first appeal before the learned First Appellate Court which was allowed and the suit of plaintiff has been dismissed. 6. In this manner, this second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 7. This Court on 18-04-1995 admitted the second appeal on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the alternative claim decreed by the trial Court could be set aside while negativing plaintiffs title over the suit land Khasra No.2630?” 8. The contention of Shri Varma, learned counsel for the appellant is that even if learned First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the transaction of exchange is not proved, it was incumbent upon that Court to affirm the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court granting the alternative relief to the plaintiff by passing a decree in that regard. Learned counsel further submits that transaction of exchange was between the predecessor of second and third defendant and the plaintiff and therefore, first defendant, who came in the picture only on 6-6-1988 when the land Survey No.2630 was sold to him, has no locus standi to say anything about exchange including the title of plaintiff on Survey No.380 before the exchange, because that transaction was between plaintiff and second and third defendants’ predecessor Suryadeen. It has also been put forth by him that in the written-statement filed by defendant no.3, the factum of the ownership of Survey No.380 earlier was of plaintiff has been specifically admitted in paragraph 1 of the plaint by the said defendant and thus, it amounts to strong admission in his favour with regard to ownership of Survey No.380 and hence, if the said transaction of exchange was not found to be decreed, the alternative decree sought by the plaintiff ought to have been decreed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that survey No.380 which was given in exchange to Suryadeen by him was given by Ilakedar to plaintiff in Samwat 1998 (corresponding year 1941) and hence, the ownership of that Survey No.380 of plaintiff has been unambiguously proved. 10. On the other hand, Shri Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.3/defendant no.3 argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that the factum of exchange has not been found to be proved by the First Appellate Court by assigning cogent reasons and therefore, this appeal be dismissed. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Regarding substantial question framed 12. On bare perusal of the record and the pleadings of the parties, this Court finds that the transaction of exchange took place between Suryadeen who was admittedly the predecessor of second and third defendants, and defendant no.1 Lalji was nowhere in the picture in the said transaction for the simple reason that he came into existence only on 6-6-1988 when the second and third defendants namely, Ram Prakash and Rajeev Lochan sold Survey No.2630 which was given to said Suryadeen in exchange to the first defendant and therefore, if he has denied in his written statement that plaintiff was not the owner of Survey No.380 earlier, his denial will have no significance. On the other hand, the defendant no.3 Rajeev Lochan in his written-statement has specifically admitted that plaintiff was the owner of Survey No.380 area 2.85 acres which he gave in exchange to his predecessor Suryadeen and Survey No.2630 which was of Suryadeen was given to the plaintiff. Looking to the clear and unambiguous pleading of defendant no.3 Rajeev Lochan, who admitted the plaintiff to be the owner of Survey No.380 earlier, is the turning point of the case. Looking to the clear and unambiguous pleading of defendant no.3 Rajeev Lochan, who admitted the plaintiff to be the owner of Survey No.380 earlier, is the turning point of the case. Because, the admissions, if it is true and clear are the best proof of the facts admitted. 13. According to me, the admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves, can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence are by themselves not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong and also can be explained. In this context, I may profitably place reliance on (Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Iccharam alias Brijram and others) AIR 1974 SC 471 , para 26. Since clear and unambiguous admission has been made by defendant no.3 Rajeev Lochan in his written-statement admitting that before the transaction of exchange took place, the plaintiff was owner of Survey No.380, therefore, I am of the view that the case of plaintiff comes in the former category of admission made by the defendant, and if that would be the position, it stands on higher footing and is fully binding upon the plaintiff and not only this, it constitutes the wavier of proof. By such admission, the foundation of the rights of the parties can be determined. Hence, I am of the view that it has been proved that the plaintiff was the owner of Survey No.380 and because the theory of exchange has been negatived by learned First Appellate Court, he (plaintiff) was entitled to take back the possession of Survey No.380. 14. Apart from what I have held here-in-above, on bare perusal of the document of title Survey No.380 which is a Patta Ex.P-8 of Samwat 1998 (corresponding year 1941), it is gathered that Ilakedar gave Survey No.380 to the plaintiff by executing the said Patta to the plaintiff. 14. Apart from what I have held here-in-above, on bare perusal of the document of title Survey No.380 which is a Patta Ex.P-8 of Samwat 1998 (corresponding year 1941), it is gathered that Ilakedar gave Survey No.380 to the plaintiff by executing the said Patta to the plaintiff. Since the document of Patta is of Samwat 1998 (corresponding year 1941), it is 30 years old document and when the same was proved by plaintiff Mahaveer in his testimony on 28-07-1989, it attained the age of presumption of its correctness i.e., 30 years, and therefore, its execution and attestation also stands proved. 15. For the reasons stated here-in-above, the substantial question of law is thus answered that if the factum of exchange was not found to be proved by First Appellate Court, it had erred in setting aside the decree of learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiff by granting alternative relief to him and it is hereby held that plaintiff is the Bhumiswami of Survey No.380 and also entitled for possession of the said land. 16. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside and the suit of plaintiff is partly decreed. He is hereby declared to be Bhumiswami of Survey No.380. Let possession of this land area 2.85 acres be delivered to him. No order as to costs. 17. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly.