JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kinnaur Division at Rampur Bushahr, in civil Appeal No. 24 of 2005, dated 13.03.2007, vide which, learned Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, in Civil Suit No. 52-1 of 2002, dated 10.06.2005. 2. This appeal was admitted on 28.08.2008 on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the findings of the court below are based on misreading, misconstruction of oral and documentary evidence more particularly the statements of PW1 to PW3 an documents Exhibit PW1/A, PW1/B. 2. Whether the judgment of the District Judge is contrary to the provisions of order 20 rule 1 and judgment of this Court reported in AIR 2000(1) SC 15 Om Parkash –v- State of H.P. 3. Whether the judgment of the court below vitiated in view of the admission made by the defendant in the application under order 41 rule 27 CPC when the defendant had failed to substantiate the case in the absence of the documents being not proved and in not deciding the application under order 41 rule 27 CPC which has vitiated the findings. 3. At the time of arguments, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, has submitted that he will be pressing substantial question of law No. 2 only because substantial questions of law No. 4 and 6 were wrongly framed. 4. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.42,545/- against the defendant on the ground that he and defendant were real brothers and they were joint owners of Maruti gypsy (HP-25-0004), which vehicle was registered with the Registering and Licencing Authority Kalpa, District Kinnaur. As per the plaintiff, the vehicle was mostly used by the defendant with the consent of the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to call for the vehicle as and when required by him. In the year 1998, the said vehicle was stolen and was thereafter found in an accidental condition. A criminal case was duly registered with the police in this regard. In the year 1998, the said vehicle was stolen and was thereafter found in an accidental condition. A criminal case was duly registered with the police in this regard. The vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office at Tapri and the factum of vehicle having been stolen and the same subsequently been found in an accidental condition was duly communicated to the Insurance Company. The said Company visited the spot and got the damage assessed. It was further the case of the plaintiff that at the time of the purchase of the vehicle he had paid the entire sale consideration but keeping in view the fact that the defendant also required the same and he was his real brother, vehicle was purchased in the joint name of the plaintiff and defendant. Further, as per the plaintiff, after the assessment of the damage by the Insurance Company, the plaintiff did not hear anything with regard to the payment of the claim. In these circumstances, he wrote a letter to the Insurance Company on 16.05.2002 and in response thereof, he was intimated by the Insurance Company that the said Company had already made compensation to the tune of Rs.63,500/- vide cheque No. 814191 dated 21.12.1999, which was duly received by the defendant on 21.12.1999. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was legally bound to pay half of the said amount, which he had received from the Insurance Company to the plaintiff. However, this was not done by the defendant and accordingly, on these basis, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. 5. In the written statement, though the defendant admitted the factum of the registration of vehicle in the joint names of the plaintiff and defendant, however, according to him, the plaintiff had consented to get the ill-fated vehicle overhauled and it was also agreed that whatever expenses were incurred in the repair of the vehicle, same were to be borne equally by the plaintiff and the defendant. According to the defendant, he incurred an amount of Rs.70,187.76 in the repair of the said vehicle on 01.06.1999, which was substantiated by two different bills amounting to Rs.56,137.76 and Rs.18,050.00 respectively. According to the defendant, he incurred an amount of Rs.70,187.76 in the repair of the said vehicle on 01.06.1999, which was substantiated by two different bills amounting to Rs.56,137.76 and Rs.18,050.00 respectively. Further, as per him, after receiving the claim amount from insurer on 21.11.1999 the plaintiff was duly informed and apprised of the adjustment of claim amount towards the expenses incurred by the defendant but the plaintiff did not respond. Therefore, on this plea, the defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.42,545/- alongwith interest, as alleged? … OPP 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? … OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit by his act and conduct? … OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? … OPD 5. Relief. 7. The following findings were returned on the said issues by the learned trial Court on the basis of the material produced before it by the respective parties: Issue No. 1 : The plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.31,750/- plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Issue No. 2 : No. Issue No. 3 : No. Issue No. 4 : No. Relief : Suit decreed as per operative portion of the Judgment. 8. The learned trial Court held that it was an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was registered in the joint names of plaintiff and defendant. It further held that it was also an admitted fact that both the plaintiff and defendant were real brothers and whereas, the plaintiff was permanently residing at Rampur Bushahr for last many years and the defendant was residing at Powari in District Kinnaur. It further held that the factum of vehicle being stolen and thereafter, the same being found in an accidental condition and being in the possession of the defendant was also an admitted fact. It further held that the factum of vehicle being stolen and thereafter, the same being found in an accidental condition and being in the possession of the defendant was also an admitted fact. The learned trial Court further held that the insurance of the said vehicle was carried out with National Insurance Company Ltd. having its Branch Office at Tapri and receiving of an amount of Rs.63,500/- by the defendant from the said Insurance Company by way of cheque No. 814191 dated 21.12.1999 in lieu of the claim of vehicle in issue was also an admitted fact. On these basis, the learned trial Court held that it was difficult to say that amount as was being claimed by the defendant was actually incurred by him on the repair of the vehicle as the defendant had failed to prove on record the alleged bills on which he was pressing his claim. It further held that even otherwise there was nothing on record to prove that an amount of Rs.70,187.76 was actually incurred by the defendant on the repair of the vehicle in question. Accordingly, the learned trial Court concluded that the record reflected that claim amount of Rs.63,500/- was received by the defendant from Insurance Company on 21.12.1999 and he had not paid half amount to the plaintiff. Learned trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the said amount i.e. half of the claim amount which had been received from the Insurance Company alongwith interest. Accordingly, the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.31,750/- alongwith interest. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal. 10. Learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 13.03.2007 allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Learned Appellate Court held that the main question which arose for consideration in the appeal was whether the plaintiff was entitled to the half of the amount of claim received from the Insurance company? Learned Appellate Court held that learned counsel for the plaintiff had made suggestions to the defendant that before receipt of the insurance compensation, the defendant had submitted the final bill of repair to the Insurance Company and only thereafter the Insurance Company had paid the compensation. Learned Appellate Court held that learned counsel for the plaintiff had made suggestions to the defendant that before receipt of the insurance compensation, the defendant had submitted the final bill of repair to the Insurance Company and only thereafter the Insurance Company had paid the compensation. It further held that there was no evidence that the Insurance Company had paid the compensation in excess of the repair amount. It further held that it was not the case of the plaintiff that he had paid any amount for the repair of the vehicle. Learned Appellate Court held that whatever amount defendant had received had been spent by him on the repair of the vehicle and only then the Insurance Company had allowed the compensation. On these basis, the learned Appellate Court held that the learned trial Court had erred in decreeing the suit on the ground that the defendant had not proved the bills as the same in fact stood proved from the admission of the plaintiff as well as the Insurance Company that they had paid the compensation in lieu of the bills of repairs submitted by the defendant. Learned Appellate Court further held that in the absence of any contribution by the plaintiff towards the repair expenses, the plaintiff was not entitled to receive half of the amount of compensation which was paid for making the vehicle roadworthy by the Insurance Company. On these basis, learned Appellate Court held that the fact that the defendant had not proved the bills had no effect as the same stood proved from the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant had submitted the bills of repair to the Insurance Company and only then the Insurance company had paid the compensation in favour of both the brothers. On these basis, learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 11. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, vide which, it has upset the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. 12. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that learned Appellate Court has erred in setting aside the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. According to Mr. 12. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that learned Appellate Court has erred in setting aside the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. According to Mr. Sood, learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the defendant had not produced on record even an iota of evidence to substantiate his contention that he had spent any money on the repairs of the vehicle in issue with the consent which the plaintiff allegedly had agreed to share alongwith the defendant. As per Mr. Sood, this concocted story of the defendant was believed by the learned Appellate Court, which has resulted in great injustice to the present appellant. According to Mr. Sood, it stood proved on record that the entire compensation amount paid by the Insurance Company to the defendant, has been appropriated by him and the plaintiff has not been paid his share out of the said compensation amount though the plaintiff was entitled to half of the said amount. This important aspect of the matter had been totally over looked by the learned Appellate Court and that too by placing unnecessary importance to the suggestions given to the defendant without appreciating that the case of the plaintiff could not have been negated on the basis of the said suggestion. As per Mr. Sood, the plaintiff had never admitted that an amount of Rs.70,187.00 had been incurred as expenses by the defendant on the repair of the vehicle in issue nor the defendant had placed any material on record to substantiate this contention. Therefore, in absence of any contemporary material to justify this contention of the defendant on record, the learned appellate Court has erred in allowing the appeal of the defendant and set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 13. On the other hand, Ms. Ritta Goswami, Advocate, had submitted that in view of the admission made by the plaintiff by way of suggestions put to the defendant in his cross-examination there was no need for the defendant to prove that he had actually spent an amount of Rs.70,187/- on the repair of the vehicle in question by placing any material on record. Ms. Goswami argued that it was well settled principle of law that a fact which stood admitted by the other party need not be proved. Ms. Goswami argued that it was well settled principle of law that a fact which stood admitted by the other party need not be proved. According to her, as the factum of defendant having spent money on the repair of the vehicle stood admitted by the plaintiff, therefore, this fact was not to be proved by the defendant. In order to substantiate her contention, she placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Avtar Singh and Others Vs. Gurdial Singh and Others, (2006) 12 SCC 552 , (ii) Shreedhar Govind Kamerkar Vs. Yesahwant Govind Kamerkar and another, (2006) 13 SCC 481, and (iii) Ponnusami Chettiar Vs. Kailasam Chettiar, A.I.R.(34) 1947 Madras 422. 14. Accordingly, she argued that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. 16. A perusal of the records of the present case demonstrate that to substantiate its case, plaintiff has examined two witnesses in addition to the plaintiff himself having stepped into the witness box, whereas, the defendant ha not examined any person as his witness except entering into the witness box himself. Besides this, the plaintiff has exhibited two documents to substantiate his case i.e. Registration Certificate of the vehicle Ext. PW1/A and reply to the letter of the plaintiff given by the Insurance Company Ext. PW1/B. On the other hand, the defendant has not produced any document on record to substantiate his case. 17. The two alleged bills which were produced by the defendant to substantiate his contention that he had spent money on the repair of the vehicle were not proved on record. 18. The factum of the plaintiff and defendant being joint owners of the vehicle in question is not in dispute and the same is also evident from Ext. PW1/A. Similarly, the factum of the entire claim amount having been paid by the Insurance Company to the defendant is also evident from communication dated 23.05.2002 Ext. PW1/B. The factum of this claim amount having been appropriated by the defendant is also not in dispute. Accordingly, in this background, it has to be adjudicated whether the learned Appellate Court has erred in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court or not. PW1/B. The factum of this claim amount having been appropriated by the defendant is also not in dispute. Accordingly, in this background, it has to be adjudicated whether the learned Appellate Court has erred in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court or not. Plaintiff has entered the witness box as PW- 1 to prove his case. PW-2 Anil Kumar, Registration Clerk, RLA Kalpa, has proved on record that the vehicle in question was jointly registered in the names of the plaintiff and defendant. Similarly, PW-3 Pratap Singh has proved on record the entire claim amount of vehicle No. HP 25-0004 was paid to the defendant and that he has appropriated the entire amount. Exhibits PW1/A and PW1/B are to this effect. Thus, the plaintiff has placed material on record from where it can be deduced that the vehicle in question was jointly owned by him and his brother i.e. the defendant and the entire claim amount which was paid by the Insurance Company in lieu of the said vehicle was not only to be paid to the defendant but he has also appropriated the same to the exclusion of the plaintiff. 19. On the other hand, the defendant has not placed any material whatsoever on record to substantiate his case that he has spent an amount of over Rs.70,000/- on the repair of the vehicle. Besides his bald statement to this effect, there is no other evidence produced by him either ocular or documentary. In these circumstances, in my considered view, whereas the learned trial Court had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, learned Appellate Court has erred in setting aside the said well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The reasonings which has been given by the learned Appellate Court while setting aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court are not sustainable. Learned Appellate Court has heavily relied upon the suggestions which have been made to the defendant during the course of his cross-examination to non-suit the plaintiff. However, the learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that on the strength of the suggestions so made to defendant by no stretch of imagination, it could be held that the plaintiff had admitted the factum of the defendant having been spent more than Rs.70,000/- on the repair of the vehicle. However, the learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that on the strength of the suggestions so made to defendant by no stretch of imagination, it could be held that the plaintiff had admitted the factum of the defendant having been spent more than Rs.70,000/- on the repair of the vehicle. The onus to prove the factum of having incurred expenses on the repair of the vehicle was on the defendant which he failed to discharge. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in this background are of no assistance to the respondent. The factum of admission being the best form of evidence and Section 58 of the Evidence Act postulating that things admitted need not be proved as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh and Others Vs. Gurdial Singh and Others, (2006) 12 SCC 552 and Shreedhar Govind Kamerkar Vs. Yesahwant Govind Kamerkar and another, (2006) 13 SCC 481, is a well settled proposition of law. However, on the basis of material from the material on record in the present case, it cannot be concluded that at any stage the plaintiff has admitted defendant having been spent an amount of Rs.70,000/- on the repairs of the vehicle. The arguments of Ms. Goswami that the bills submitted by the defendant which are not exhibited ipsofacto were admissible in law in view of the law laid down by the High Court of Madras in Ponnusami Chettiar Vs. Kailasam Chettiar, A.I.R.(34) 1947 Madras 422, is also without any merit. The High Court of Madras in the above mentioned judgment has held that if the execution of the document is admitted then it need not be proved. There is no quarrel with the said proposition of law. Had it been a case that the plaintiff herein had admitted the fact of defendant having carried out the repairs of the vehicle and having spent money on the said repairs and had he admitted the bills produced in this regard by the defendant, then there was no need for the defendant to have proved the said bills. But the fact of the matter remains that the plaintiff has never admitted any of the above mentioned facts. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is of no assistance to her. 20. But the fact of the matter remains that the plaintiff has never admitted any of the above mentioned facts. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is of no assistance to her. 20. Accordingly, in my considered view, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court are not sustainable in law and learned Appellate Court has erred in setting aside the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 21. In view of what has been discussed above, the present appeal is allowed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court dated 13.03.2007 in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2005 is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2005 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 52-1 of 2002 is upheld. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, also stand disposed of.