ORDER 1. Heard Mr. B.R. Dey, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 26-09-2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 09/2012 affirming the judgment and decree dated 10-09-2012 passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 44/2009 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 3. The brief factual background of this case is that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of a plot of land measuring 3K-12L covered by Dag Nos. 318, 320 and 458 of Periodic Patta No. 103 of Puronigudam town kissam, Chalchali Mouza in the district of Nagaon together with houses and other structures standing thereupon, which has been described in the schedule to the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff isthat the defendant is a distant relative of his and on being approached by the defendant with a request to allow him to stay in the suit land, the plaintiff had accepted such request on humanitarian ground having regard to the helpless condition of the defendant as well as in view of the fact that the defendant had to stay away from the suit property in connection with his service. The defendant, however, assured the plaintiff that he would vacate the suit land as and when required by the plaintiff. On such condition the defendant started living there by constructing houses over it as a permissive occupier under the plaintiff. In the early part of 2008, the plaintiff had returned back to his hometown and asked the defendant to vacate the suit land. Initially the defendant had agreed to vacate the same on or before 31-12-2008 but subsequently, he did not comply with the said assurance given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had again approached the defendant asking him to vacate the suit land and at that point of time the defendant had denied his title over the suit land and refused to vacate the same which has prompted the plaintiff to institute the aforementioned title suit seeking declaration of right, title and interest and also for recovery of possession of the suit land by evicting the defendant. 4. 4. Upon receipt of the summons the defendant had appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement, inter alia, raising question as regards maintainability of the suit on the ground of want of cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties, suit being barred by limitation as well as on the principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence. The defendant No. 1 had further taken a plea that he had acquired title by prescription over the suit land by way of adverse possession. It was also the pleaded case of the defendant that his mother had constructed houses over the suit land and thereafter his mother and brother were living in the suit property and not the defendant himself. The defendant’s further plea was that suit land being adjacent to his paternal land, about 45 years ago plaintiff’s father Toslim Ali had made a proposal to sell the suit land to the mother of the defendant. She had also agreed to purchase the same and thereafter the price was also settled and paid to Toslim Ali pursuant whereto the possession of the suit land was delivered in favour of the mother of the defendant. However, Toslim Ali died before execution of the sale deed as a result of which the mother of the defendant had continued in possession in respect of the suit land continuously by constructing houses thereupon. On such basis the defendant had prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff with cost. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court had framed as many as 7 issues which are as follows: 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 3. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? 4. Whether the plaintiff has transferred the suit land to the defendant? 5. Whether the defendant is entitled to any right over the suit property? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for? 7. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to under the law, equity and justice? 6. Both the parties adduced oral evidence in support of their respective cases and the plaintiff also adduced and proved documents in support of his claim of title over the suit land. 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for? 7. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to under the law, equity and justice? 6. Both the parties adduced oral evidence in support of their respective cases and the plaintiff also adduced and proved documents in support of his claim of title over the suit land. After hearing the counsel for the parties the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon had passed judgment and order dated 10-09-2012 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff without cost. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10-09-2012 passed in Title Suit No. 44/2009 the defendant as appellant had preferred Title Appeal No. 09/2012 before the court of learned District Judge, Nagaon. By the judgment and order dated 26-09-2014 the Title Appeal No. 09/2012 filed by the appellant/ defendant was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. 8. Both the courts below had concurrently recorded finding of fact that there was no dispute about the fact that the suit land originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff Toslim Ali. There is also no dispute as regards the fact that the plaintiff is the legal heir of late Toslim Ali and as such the plaintiff had inherited the suit land from his father and was entitled to a decree as prayed for on the basis of materials available on record. On the contrary the defendant had failed to prove and establish his case that the suit land was sold by Toslim Ali in favour of his mother. The defendant had also failed to plead and establish his case of having acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. 9. Mr. B.R. Dey, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellant submits that regardless of the stand taken by the defendant in the written statement, since the plaintiff was seeking a decree for declaration of title over the suit land, hence, it was his burden to prove and establish his entitlement over the suit land by producing the document of title before the court, which the plaintiff has failed to do. By relying upon a judgment and decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2015) SLT 1, in the case of H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Others vs. L. Venkatesh Reddy, Mr. By relying upon a judgment and decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2015) SLT 1, in the case of H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Others vs. L. Venkatesh Reddy, Mr. Dey submits that it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in number of cases that the jamabandi is not a document of title and as such no title can be declared merely on the basis of entries in revenue record. In order to succeed in obtaining a decree for declaration of title, the party seeking such a relief is bound to prove and establish his title based on title documents. Mr. Dey further submits that even if there is admission on behalf of the defendant as regards the title of the plaintiff’s father in respect of the suit land, even in that case the court can require the plaintiff to prove and establish his case by adducing evidence. The aforementioned position of law goes to show that mere admission of a fact need not have conclusive bearing, when it comes to question of establishing title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. 10. I have considered the submission made by Mr. Dey, learned Sr. counsel. From examination of the pleadings of the parties what can be seen is that plaintiff has claimed his title over the suit land having inherited the same from his father who was the original owner of the said plot of land. The defendant in his written statement has admitted the fact that the suit land originally belonged to Toslim Ali i.e. the father of the plaintiff. The defendant has claimed that the said plot of land was sold by Toslim Ali to his mother 45 years back, although the defendant has also admitted that there is no sale deed executed by Toslim Ali in favour of his mother. The plaintiff has produced copies of jamabandi to show that his name has been recorded in respect of the suit land in place of his predecessor-in-interest i.e. Toslim Ali. The plaintiff has also led evidence not only to show that he has been in continuous physical possession of the suit property but also to proved and establish the fact that the defendant entered the suit property as a permissive occupier under the facts and circumstances narrated in the plaint. The plaintiff has also led evidence not only to show that he has been in continuous physical possession of the suit property but also to proved and establish the fact that the defendant entered the suit property as a permissive occupier under the facts and circumstances narrated in the plaint. Since there is no dispute as regards the title of the plaintiff’s father in respect of the suit land, hence, the learned court below did not feel the necessity to require the plaintiff to prove and establish his title over the suit land by producing document of title over and above the evidence that has already been brought on record. The learned courts below have concurrently recorded finding of facts in respect of issue No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in faovur of the plaintiff. It is no doubt settled position of law that the burden of proof would lie upon the plaintiff to prove and establish his case and the same would never shift regardless of the stand taken by the defendant in the written statement. However, it is also settled law that facts admitted need not be proved. Since there was neither any dispute as regards the question of title of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff over the suit land nor any issue was framed in that regard, hence, the appellant cannot be allowed to raise any plea as regards the title of the plaintiff over the suit land at this stage. 11. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the admission made by the defendant, the learned court below was justified in law in deciding the issue No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in favour of the plaintiff by dispensing with the requirement of any further proof of title by the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. Since the findings concurrently recorded by both the courts below are based on materials on record, I do not find any reason to cause interference with such concurrent finding of fact in a second appeal. In view of the foregoing discussions it is held that no substantial question of law arises for a decision in this appeal. The second appeal is devoid of any merit and consequently the same stands dismissed.