JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. This petition has been filed against the Judgment dated 6.3.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Board') whereby it has setaside the Judgment & Decree dated 28.6.2000 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar (hereinafter 'the RAA') restoring that of the SDO, Jhunjhunu passed on 12.6.1998. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration and partition claiming that the suit land was ancestral property belonging to the grandfather of both the plaintiff and the defendants-one Saligram. It was stated that the plaintiffs were the sons of Murlidhar-one of the six son of Saligram and in terms of a preexisting arrangement between the family members in exclusive possession of ?th share in Khasra No. 908/1 ad-measuring 8 bigha 15 biswas situate in Jhunjhunu. It was prayed that they be accordingly declared khatedars to that extent over the portion described in the plaint. 3. Written statement to the suit was filed on 5.8.1996 wherein it was admitted by the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') Ramswaroop as also the two sons of another son of Saligram, one Vishwanath (the co-defendant) that the suit property was indeed ancestral. The defendant Ramswaroop in the written statement specifically stated that the plaintiff's suit be decreed. 4. Thereafter an application however came to be filed on 15.12.1997 by the defendant Ramswaroop wherein the admission in the written statement of the suit property being ancestral and that the suit be decreed was sought to be reneged from and it was contended that Ramswaroop was the absolute owner of the property having purchased it by registered sale deed dated 18.3.1957 resulting in mutation opening in his name alone on 28.5.1958. It was submitted that in these circumstances the suit laid on the basis of the property being ancestral, the plaintiffs being in possession of ?th part thereof as per a preexisting family arrangement, was without substance and liable to be dismissed. The said application was dismissed by the SDO, Jhunjhunu on 11.6.1998. 5. The SDO, Jhunjhunu on consideration of the matter and the admission of the defendant proceeded to decree the plaintiff's suit on the basis of the admission in the written statement with the defendant praying that the suit be decreed. The said application was dismissed by the SDO, Jhunjhunu on 11.6.1998. 5. The SDO, Jhunjhunu on consideration of the matter and the admission of the defendant proceeded to decree the plaintiff's suit on the basis of the admission in the written statement with the defendant praying that the suit be decreed. It was also noted that even otherwise the defendant Ramswaroop in an earlier suit laid by Vishwanath- one of the other son of Saligram- Suit No. 8/1992 before the SDO, Jhunjhunu had also admitted in the written statement that the property in issue was ancestral whereupon Vishwanath's suit for declaration was decreed on 15.1.1992 and he allocated his share of 3 Bigha 17 Biswa in the ancestral land as per his possession in ancestral land on the basis of the preexisting family arrangement. The SDO also disbelieved the purported registered sale deed dated 18.3.1957 in favour of the defendant Ramswaroop for reason of it not being the original and also its belated filing making it ever otherwise suspect. 6. An appeal to the RAA by the defendant entailed by Judgment dated 28.6.2000 reversal of the SDO's Judgment and decree dated 12.6.1998. The plaintiff being aggrieved with the Judgment and decree dated 28.6.2000 passed by the RAA preferred a second appeal before the Board. The Board by its impugned Judgment dated 6.3.2014 set aside the Judgment & Decree dated 28.6.2000 passed by the RAA and restored that of the SDO, Jhunjhunu passed on 12.6.1998. 7. The only issue in the writ petition is and as argued by counsel is as to whether an unequivocal and clear admission made in a written statement can be reneged without a satisfactory cause to the plaintiff's prejudice. It is not in dispute that in the written statement filed by Ramswaroop in the plaintiff's suit for declaration and partition the suit land was admitted to be ancestral even though the admission was sought to be subsequently unsuccessfully withdrawn on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 18.3.1957 in the name of the defendant Ramswaroop alone as also mutated in the revenue records in his name on 28.5.1998. 8. Ms. Ashish Joshi appearing for the defendant has empathetically submitted that an admission itself cannot be the foundation of the suit being decreed. 8. Ms. Ashish Joshi appearing for the defendant has empathetically submitted that an admission itself cannot be the foundation of the suit being decreed. Reference has been made in appositely, if I may say so, to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balraj Taneja and Another v. Sunil Madan and Another, (1999) 8 SCC 396 (a case arising from a suit for specific performance decreed without a written statement of record) to submit that the courts cannot act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the defendant in his written statement and that the courts should not proceed to decree a suit and pass judgment mechanically merely because a written statement has not been filed by the defendant traversing the facts set out by the plaintiff in the plaint filed in the Court. Counsel submits that despite the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the suit of the plaintiff suit for declaration and partition was decreed by the SDO, Jhunjhunu arbitrarily dismissing the application for withdrawal of the admission filed on 15.12.1997 vide order dated 11.6.1998 and over-looking the fact that Ramswaroop was the absolute owner of the property in terms of the registered sale deed dated 18.3.1957 and the mutation dated 28.5.1958. 9. Per-contra Mr. A.S Shekhawat appearing for the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') submits that an admission in the pleadings cannot be withdrawn. The application for withdrawal of the admission was rightly dismissed. Documents relied upon to claim sole ownership of the suit land by the defendant Ramswaroop was thus not taken on record and rightly so being a mere photo copy of the purported sale deed dated 18.3.1957. Counsel submits that the written statement was filed on 5.8.1996 admitting to the suit property being ancestral and belonging to Saligram the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendant. The plaintiff was in possession of the demarcated 1 bigha 6 biswa of the ancestral land as detailed in the plaint. The defendant Ramswaroop in his written statement as also the sons of Vishwanath had admitted that the suit property was ancestral property. The plaintiff was in possession of the demarcated 1 bigha 6 biswa of the ancestral land as detailed in the plaint. The defendant Ramswaroop in his written statement as also the sons of Vishwanath had admitted that the suit property was ancestral property. It has been submitted that aside of the aforesaid in a separate suit No. 8/1992 before SDO, Jhunjhunu filed by another brother of the plaintiff one Vishwanath whose two sons were also defendants in the plaintiff's suit, Ramswaroop as the defendant therein has admitted to the suit property being ancestral and based thereon a decree in favour of Vishwanath was deceased was passed on 15.1.1992. It has been submitted that from the cumulative effect of the two unequivocal and clear admissions made by the defendant Ramswaroop first in Vishwanath's suit and subsequently in the plaintiff's suit, the suit property was conclusively ancestral. An attempt to renege from an admission in writing is not permissible in law it was empathetically submitted. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited v. M/s. Ladha Ram and Company AIR 1988 SC 680 where by means of an amendment the Defendant wanted to introduce an entirely different case. Therein the Apex Court held that the Defendants cannot be allowed to completely change the case set up in their written statement and to substitute an entirely different new case as if such amendments are allowed the Plaintiffs would be irretrievably prejudiced. Counsel also referred to the case of Heeralal v. Kayalan Mal and Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 278 , and Heeralal v. Kayalan Mal and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 618 , wherein it was held that once a written statement contains an admission in favour of the Plaintiff, amendment of such admission of the Defendants cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. Further in B.K. Narayana Pillai and Parameshwaran Pillai and Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 712 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that though the Defendant has a right to take alternative pleas in defence by way of amendment, it would be subject to qualification that (i) Proposed amendment should not result in injustice to the other side; (ii) any admission made in favour of Plaintiff should not be withdrawn; and (iii) inconsistent and contradictory allegations which negate admitted facts should not be raised. Counsel for the respondent submits that all the above cases have been followed recently by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Malla Reddy v. M/s. Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society & Ors, 2013 DNJ (SC) 513 and it has been reiterated that an admission in pleadings cannot be allowed to be withdrawn to the prejudice of the opposite party. 10. Counsel submits that it is thus evident that the defendant cannot be allowed to renege from the admission made in the written statement and set up a mutually inconsistent plea to the one earlier taken to the plaintiff's prejudice. He submits that the RAA had in the facts of the case and applicable law wrongly and perfunctorily interfered with the Judgment & Decree passed by the SDO, Jhunjhunu on 12.6.1998 failing to deal with the reasons on record and illegally over-looked defendant's admission in the written statement. It has been submitted that the Board has in the circumstances rightly under its impugned order dated 6.3.2014 setaside the RAA's Judgment and restored that of the SDO's. 11. Having heard counsel for the defendant, I am of the considered opinion that there is no force in the writ petition. 12. The case of Balraj Taneja & Anr. (supra) relied upon by Ms. Joshi- counsel for the defendant is of no succour. All that the said Judgment even otherwise enunciated, in a wholly different context of a suit for specific performance being decreed without a written statement being filed and its consequence under Order 8, Rule 5 , 9 and 10 CPC, is that even in the event of an admission by the defendant in the written statement, the Court is to be cautious before decreeing the suit based thereon. Before passing a Judgment on the defendant's admissions it must be seen whether a Judgment must necessarily follow without the plaintiff being required to prove any additional fact mentioned in the plaint. Before passing a Judgment on the defendant's admissions it must be seen whether a Judgment must necessarily follow without the plaintiff being required to prove any additional fact mentioned in the plaint. The Apex Court held "It is a matter of Court's satisfaction and, therefore, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need be proved on account of deemed admission (underlining mine), the Court can conveniently pass a Judgment against the defendant who has not filed the written statement." The law as stated does not support the sweeping contention of the counsel for the defendant that admissions of the defendant apart, the plaintiff has yet to prove what has been admitted. It all depends on the nature of the suit and the admission in context thereto. In the instant case, the defendant in his unequivocal and clear admission in the written statement admitted that the suit land was ancestral from the time of common ancestor Saligram and stated categorically that the suit be decreed as prayed. In the plaintiff's suit based on land being ancestral and it be partitioned on the basis of possession as per the old existing arrangement- which was also admitted- nothing remained to be proved as admission is the best evidence. No other fact such as the plaintiff being the descendant of Saligram was in dispute. Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act inter-alia states that no fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time, they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings. The proviso to the said section indeed does confer discretion but does not mandate the Court to require that the facts admitted be proved otherwise than by admission. Hence what obtains is the discretion of the Court to require proof of a fact admitted otherwise than by way of admission. This discretion was exercised by the trial court in finding the defendant Saligram's admission in the written statement as to ancestral nature of the suit land and the right of the plaintiffs to declaration and partition on the basis of a preexisting family arrangement under which the plaintiffs were in possession and even praying that the suit be decreed. This discretion was exercised by the trial court in finding the defendant Saligram's admission in the written statement as to ancestral nature of the suit land and the right of the plaintiffs to declaration and partition on the basis of a preexisting family arrangement under which the plaintiffs were in possession and even praying that the suit be decreed. The question therefor is whether non-exercise of discretion by the SDO, Jhunjhunu in requiring to the plaintiff to prove that the land was ancestral despite the defendant's admission in the written statement that it was so, illegal. 13. In Wander Ltd. and Another v. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that an appeal against the exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. And if the discretion has been exercised by the Court reasonably and in a judicial manner it warrants no interference. The present proceedings are not in appeal but under the extra-ordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A fortori, the scope of this Court interfering with the Judgment and Decree of the SDO Jhunjhunu upheld by the Board for alleged failure of the SDO to properly exercise his discretion under the proviso to Section 58 of the Act of 1872 would be narrower. Besides, I am of the considered view that in the state of law regarding rendering of Judgments on admission by a defendant in his written statement, in the context of facts of the case there was no reason whatsoever for the SDO to require the plaintiff to prove all that had been admitted by the defendant in his written statement including the plaintiff's right to a Judgment and Decree as prayed for, not the least for the reason that the defendant had made a similar admission of the suit land being ancestral in an earlier suit filed by another son of Saligram, Vishwanath (the plaintiffs were the son of Murlidhar, brother of Vishwanath and son of Saligram) leading to decree in favour of Vishwanath but also the fact that the sons of Vishwanath also impleaded as defendants in the suit in issue had similarly so stated in their written statement. Further the application for withdrawal of the admission and allowing for taking of an inconsistent and contrary plea of the defendant Ramswaroop's sole ownership of suit property was dismissed for being filed belatedly after over a year and the purported registered sale deed dated 18.3.1957 not being the original and hence also suspect. I, therefore find the contention of the defendant's counsel based on (1999) 8 SCC 396 quite untenable. 14. The trial court has rightly dismissed the defendant's application for withdrawing the admission in the written statement and held for good reasons detailed here-in-above, as affirmed by the Board, that an admission in a written statement to the plaintiff's benefit cannot be withdrawn to his prejudice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and others, (1998) 1 SCC 278 has held that once a written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff/s, an amendment to withdraw such an admission cannot be allowed and the defendant permitted to take a stand inconsistent thereto to the plaintiff's prejudice. In the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court, in a suit for partition the plaintiff had sought partition of 10 properties claiming to be joint family properties. In his written statement the defendant admitted to 7 of the 10 properties in issue being joint. Thereafter the defendant sought to amend the written statement stating that not 7 properties in issue were joint but only 2 were. This was not allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the principle earlier enunciated. 15. The RAA in my considered opinion had casually interfered with the order dated 12.6.1998 passed by the SDO, Jhunjhunu without just cause contrary to the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to admission made in the written statement not being allowed to be withdrawn to the plaintiff's prejudice and facilitate the setting up of an inconsistent plea from the one earlier taken in the first instance. The Board in the circumstances rightly exercised its jurisdiction in the second appeal to set aside the Judgment & Decree dated 28.6.2000 passed by the RAA and restore the one dated 12.6.1998 passed by the SDO, Jhunjhunu. 16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.