JUDGMENT : 1. They are heard. 2. This order shall govern the disposal of S.A.No.273/2014, S.A.No.274/2014 and S.A.No.276/2014, since the common question of law is involved in these appeals, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience the facts are borrowed from S.A.No.272/2014. 3. This appeal has been filed by defendant No.3 “ Ram Singh, against the judgment and decree dated 10.4.2014, passed in Civil Appeal No.10-A/13, whereby the lower appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court by which suit of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 “ Plaintiffs was decreed and dismissed the appeal. The suit land of 12.45 hectares situated at village Gogapur Tehsil Mahidpur, was owned by Udaji. Balu Singh, Bheru Singh and Ram Singh are sons of Udaji. After the death of Udaji, all the three sons were jointly in possession of the aforesaid land, which is ancestral property. Defendant No.1 “ Ram Singh, executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 Kailashchandra by registered sale deed dated 14.12.1998. The said sale deed was challenged by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 “ Plaintiffs, on the ground that suit land is jointly recorded in the name of three sons of Udaji and they are jointly owned the said land and unless and until the partition is effected, the defendant No.1 had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.3. He challenged different sale deeds in all the three appeals by filing suit for declaration to declare the sale deed as null and void and also prayed for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the respondent No.3 from interfering in their possession. 4. The defendant No.1 - Ram Singh “ in para 5 of his statement has admitted that suit land was ancestral agriculture land. After the death of Udaji, he and Balu Singh were Karta— of the family. In para 6 he has deposed that after the death of his father all the three brothers started residing separately. He in his statement has deposed that partition was effected between them, but no revenue record regarding partition has been filed by him nor he in para 6 of his cross-examination has stated about the land, which he got in partition. He in his statement has deposed that partition was effected between them, but no revenue record regarding partition has been filed by him nor he in para 6 of his cross-examination has stated about the land, which he got in partition. In para 7, he admitted that in respect of survey No.303/1, which is the subject-matter of sale deed that no possession was delivered to the defendant No.3 nor possession of defendant No.3 is recorded in the revenue record. Similarly, defendant No.3 “ Kailashchandra, in para 4 of his cross-examination has admitted the following :- (Vernacular matter omitted.........Ed.) 5. In view of the admission made by defendant No.3 “Kailashchandra (DW2) in his cross-examination, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that land in question is jointly owned by plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and they are in joint possession and have their share and continued to remain joint over the total land of his father. The defendant No.2 had no right to alienate the land without partition and declared the sale deed as null and void. On the basis of joint possession, the learned trial Court also granted decree for permanent injunction and held that sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs. 6. The lower appellate Court, after appreciating the admissions made by the defendant No.3 affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to para 14 of the statement of DW1 and submitted that during cross examination an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the defendant No.3, but as per the note appended after para 14 of the statement of DW1, the said objection has to be decided at the time of judgment, but no such objection was decided. He further submitted that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC was filed along with the appeal filed before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court allowed the application for taking additional documents on record and taken three sale deeds on record, but the matter was not remitted to the trial Court to decide a fresh and, therefore, committed a legal error in dismissing the appeal. He has drawn my attention to the decisions in the case of Smt. Mushamma Sarod v. Harishankar & Ors. He has drawn my attention to the decisions in the case of Smt. Mushamma Sarod v. Harishankar & Ors. reported as 2005 (II) MPACJ 5, decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Jugraj Singh & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh & Ors., reported as AIR 1971 SC 761 , Patel Uka Naran v. Kalyan Karsan & Anr. reported as AIR 1971 SC 759 , Kashinath v. Jaganath reported as 2004 (1) MPWN 95 and Ranjit Singh v. Amar Singh reported as MPWN 1996 (I) 203 and submitted that once the additional documentary evidence allowed by the lower appellate Court, the matter is to be remitted back to the trial Court for its fresh decision after affording the proper opportunity to the parties for leading evidence. 8. He submits that under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, where the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and plaintiffs are in joint possession of the suit properties, but merely claiming the declaration that he is owner of the properties, suit is not maintainable. In the present case, plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are in joint possession of the suit property. DW2 Kailash Chandra (purchaser) in his statement very categorically admitted that he was not in a possession of the property and taken a plea that orally the suit property was partioned between the three brothers. In absence of any material document or revenue record and admission made by DW2 in his cross examination, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that properties are in joint possession of sons of Udaji and, therefore, the suit for declaration of permanent injunction is very much maintainable, the Courts below have not committed any error in decreeing the suit. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Smt. Mushamma Sarod v. Harishankar & Ors. (supra) will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 9. An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. (supra) will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 9. An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. Here in the present case DW2 Kailash Chandra, who had purchased the part of the suit land, which is jointly recorded in the name of three brothers, in his statement very categorically stated that suit land was jointly recorded in the name of three brothers and, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly relied upon his statement and decreed the suit of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 10. In view of the concurrent finding of fact, recorded by the Courts below, no substantial question of law arises in these appeals. 11. S.A.No.272/2014, S.A.No.273/2014, S.A.No.274/2014 and S.A.No.276/2014, have no merit and are accordingly, dismissed. 12. A copy of this order be placed in all connected matters and be treated part of order. Appeal dismissed.