JUDGMENT M.M. DAS, J. : This Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- (I)Whether the learned first appellate Court has acted contrary to law in assuming that the averments made in paragraph-7 of the written statement filed by the appellant-defendant No.1 is a piece of admission of the plaintiff’s case ? (II)Whether the learned lower appellate Court has acted illegality by relying upon the portion of the written statement without taking the entire pleadings into consideration and passing its findings on such portion ? 2.On examining the above two substantial questions of law, it is clear that both the said questions of law relate to interpretation and acceptance of paragraph-7 of the written statement filed by the defendant - No.1 - appellant. While interpreting, it is to be examined, whether the said averments in the written statement amount to admission of the plaintiff’s case. 3.The facts of the case leading to filing of this Second Appeal are as follows : The present respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs filed T.S. No.28 of 2001 for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit scheduled land with a further prayer for confirmation of possession and for injunction with other ancillary relief. It is seen from the record that the suit plot relates to Sabik Plot No.832 of 833 constituting huge area, which belonged to the original owner Sridhar Mohapatra. The original owner sold the entire area of both the plots to several persons. Out of the aforesaid land, Ac.0.12. 1/2 decimals of land were purchased by one Ratnamani Sahu, who subsequently sold the same to one Basantilata Sahu. The plaintiffs claimed that they have purchased the said suit land by two registered sale deeds dated 14.10.1991 from the said Basnatilata Sahu. In the meantime, in the hal settlement operation, new plot numbers were allotted and pursuant to their purchase, Plot No.5317 was recorded in the name of the Plaintiff No.1 and Plot No.5317/2568 was recorded in the name of the Plaintiff No.2. The area of the above two plots was recorded as Ac.0.13 decimals. The defendants claimed that the original owner Sridhar Mohapatra also sold Ac.0.12.1/2 decimals of land in favour of one Chanda Bewa, who was the defendant No.2 in the suit. The defendant No.1 purchased Ac.0.12.1/2 decimals of land from the said Chanda Bewa by registered sale deed dated 05.02.1973. The area of the above two plots was recorded as Ac.0.13 decimals. The defendants claimed that the original owner Sridhar Mohapatra also sold Ac.0.12.1/2 decimals of land in favour of one Chanda Bewa, who was the defendant No.2 in the suit. The defendant No.1 purchased Ac.0.12.1/2 decimals of land from the said Chanda Bewa by registered sale deed dated 05.02.1973. The said purchased land, however, has been recorded in the hal settlement as Plot No.5316 constituting an area of Ac.0.15 decimals. The plaintiffs, therefore, alleged that taking advantage of such recording of Ac.0.15 decimals, the defendant No.1 encroached on a portion of the suit plot as indicated in the schedule. 4.The learned trial Court, after trial of the suit, considering the pleadings, evidence of the witnesses, documents and the report of the Amin Commissioner and holding that the plaintiff No.1 had no land beyond their purchased area of Ac.0.12.1/2 decimals of land to be encroached by the defendant No.1, dismissed the suit. 5.The plaintiffs preferred an appeal, being RFA No.12 of 2007 before the learned District Judge, Keonjhar. The learned lower appellate Court holding that the defendant No.1, in paragraph-7 of his written statement has pleaded that the plaintiffs have purchased the land from their vendors as per the ROR and have taken due demarcation of the area of Ac.0.13 decimals, of which they are in possession at present, came to the conclusion that the suit should have been decreed and, accordingly, reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court by decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs and further directing the defendant No.1 to deliver possession of Schedule-B/1 property to the plaintiffs and further injuncting the defendant No.1 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 6.Mr. Mohanty, learned senor counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned lower appellate Court has committed an illegality in not considering the entire pleadings of the defendant No.1 as given in paragraph-7 of the written statement and only picking up a sentence therefrom. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court being contrary to the records, is liable to be set-aside. 7.Mr. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court being contrary to the records, is liable to be set-aside. 7.Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned senor counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs, on the other hand, submitted that even reading from the entire pargaraph-7 of the written statement filed by the appellant-defendant No.1, it would be seen that there is a clear admission of the plaintiffs case and, therefore, no illegality can be found with the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court. To appreciate the above contentions, paragraph-7 of the written statement filed by the defendant No.1- appellant is quoted here below :- “That the contents of paragraph No.3 is denied and the sale deed or the connected ROR are not controversial, this Defendant No.1 has purchased 12 ½ decimals of land Defendant No.2 in the year 1973 and took delivery of possession of the same and continued his possession by constructing his residential house on Sabik area which was under the possession of Defendant No.2 Chanda Bewa who later received ROR in respect of A0.15 decimal according to her possession and the possession of Chanda Bewa does not relate to any portion of the land possessed by the vendors of the plaintiffs in any way. The plaintiffs have purchased the lands of third vendors as per the ROR and have taken due demarcation of their area of A0.13 decimals of which they are in possession at present. The area of Chanda Bewa of Ac.0.15 decimal was enhanced by encroachedment from the lands of original owner Sridhar Mohapatra towards the eastern side. Since the lands were Zamindari lands the illegal sales have been noted in the R.O.R of Chanda Bewa @ Dalai with note of possession of Defendant no.1 and the plaintiffs have nothing to do with these RORs or sale effected by Chanda Bewa in favour of Defendant No.1”. 8.A bare reading of the above pleadings of the appellants clearly shows that the appellants-defendants have made an admission that the plaintiffs have purchased the land of their vendors as per the ROR and have taken due demarcation of their area of Ac.0.13 decimal, of which they are in possession at present. 8.A bare reading of the above pleadings of the appellants clearly shows that the appellants-defendants have made an admission that the plaintiffs have purchased the land of their vendors as per the ROR and have taken due demarcation of their area of Ac.0.13 decimal, of which they are in possession at present. 9.In view of such admission, this Court finds that no error has been committed by the learned lower appellate Court in considering the above pleadings of the appellants-defendants as admission of the plaintiffs’ case and decreeing the suit as has been done. 10.Hence, the substantial question of law framed, being answered accordingly, this Court finds that the appeal holds no merit and, accordingly, stands dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 stands confirmed. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their respective costs of this Second Appeal. Appeal dismissed.