JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the second appeal preferred by the defendants is as under:- "Whether the lower appellate Court, without meeting the reasonings of the trial Court and that by placing the burden of proof upon the defendants by ignoring the provisions prescribed under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has erred in holding that Bahadur, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, was the son of Sonsai ?" [For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and nomenclature in the suit before the trial Court]. 2. The following genealogical tree will demonstrate the relationship among the parties:- Sonsay (Dead) Karan Say (Dead) Agarsay (Dead) Bahadur (Dead) Bhola (D) Dasrath (D) Ramcharan (D) Shukhnandan (P) Harinandan (P) 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Sonsai had three sons namely, Karansai, Agarsai and Bahadur. The plaintiffs are sons of Bahadur. It was further pleaded that Sonsai was their grandfather as their father's father was Sonsai. It was also pleaded that in the year 1985 they came to know correctly that their father's father was Sonsai, as such, they are entitled for declaration of title and possession in the suit property originally held by late Shri Sonsai. 4. The defendants filed their written statement stating inter-alia that the plaintiffs' grandfather was Laghnu, as such, Bahadur is son of Laghnu, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the suit property originally held by Sonsai and they are also not entitled for partition and possession. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 6.3.1998, dismissed the suit. On appeal being preferred by the plaintiffs, the First Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for share in the suit property. Questioning legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellants/defendants, in which substantial question of law has been framed by this Court, which has been set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 6. Questioning legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellants/defendants, in which substantial question of law has been framed by this Court, which has been set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 6. Mr.B.P.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, would submit that the First Appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in placing the burden of proof that the plaintiffs' father Bahadur was son of Sonsai ignoring the provisions contained in Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1872'). He would further submit that the plaintiffs had admitted in Ex.D/1 while filing the application for partition that their grandfather was Laghnu and not Sonsai, as such, admission, which is best piece of evidence, ought to have been relied upon by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside. 7. Mr.A.K.Prasad, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs, would support the impugned judgment and decree and submit that burden lies upon the defendants to prove that Bahadur was not son of Sonsai in view of the provisions contained in Section 101 of the Act of 1872 and there is no such admission in Ex.D/1, which is apparent from Ex.P/4 though pedigree in the application for partition was specifically denied by the defendants by filing reply before the Naib-Tahsildar, as such, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The First Appellate Court has held that burden was on the defendants to prove that Bahadur, father of the plaintiffs, was not son of Sonsai, which they have failed to prove. 10. Section 101 of the Act of 1873 provides as under:- "101. Burden of proof.-Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person." 11. Burden of proof.-Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person." 11. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs while filing Ex.D/1 have admitted the fact that Bahadur was son of Laghnu and not son of Sonsai. It would be appropriate to mention paras 3, 4 and 5 of Ex.D/1 filed by the plaintiffs before the Naib-Tahsildar, Baikunthpur which state as under:- ^^3- ;g fd] lksulk; dh oa’kkoyh fuEu Ádkj gS %& eaxy lksulk; ¼e`r½ yxuw ¼e`r½ vxjlk; ¼e`r½ djulk; ¼e`r½ cgknqj ¼e`r½ uudh ¼fo/k½ vukofndk lq[kuanu gfjuanu Hkksykjke N’kjFk jkepju 4- ;g fd] lksulk; ds firk eaxy lk; dh ,oa lksulk; ds HkkbZ eaxyw dh cUnkscLr ds iwoZ gh e`R;q gks xbZ Fkh vr% cUnkscLr ds le; eaxy lk; ds ,d ek= thfor iq= lksulk; dk uke jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa ntZ gks x;k A 5- ;g fd] vukosndx.kksa fd firk cgknqj dh mu fnuksa dkQh de mez Fkh ftlds dkj.k LoxhZ; lksulk; gh mudk ykyu ikyu djus yxs rFkk muds ml le; dksbZ lUrku u gksus ls mUgsa xksn ys fy;k rFkk mudh ofYn;r Hkh muus uke ls pykus yxs A blds i’pkr lksulk; ds nks iq= vxjlk; ,oa dju lk; dk tUe gqvk tks vukosndx.kksa ds firk Fks A bl Ádkj LoxhZ; lksulk; ds rhu iq= vFkkZr vkosndx.kkas ds firk cgknqj ,oa vukosndx.kksa ds firk ,oa pkpk djulk; ,oa vxjlk; gq, A ** 12. A careful perusal of the above-stated part of the application would show that the plaintiffs have not admitted that Bahadur was son of Laghnu, but it has been mentioned that brother of Sonsai was Manglu and not Laghnu and admission to be acted upon must be clear and unambiguous. A careful perusal of the above-stated part of the application would show that the plaintiffs have not admitted that Bahadur was son of Laghnu, but it has been mentioned that brother of Sonsai was Manglu and not Laghnu and admission to be acted upon must be clear and unambiguous. Not only this, the defendants while filing reply of the said application (Ex.D/1) have denied the genealogical tree submitted by the plaintiffs in paras 3 and 5, which state as under:- ^^3- ;g fd] dafMdk 3 esa of.kZr oa’kkoyh vLi”V ,oa v/kwjh gS rFkk xyr tkudkjh ij vk/kkfjr gS vr% vLohdkj gS A 5- ;g fd] dafMdk 5 ds rF; blds i’pkr~ lksulk; ds nks iq= vxjlk; o djulk; dk tUe gqvk tk vukosndx.kksa ds firk Fks] lR; gksus ls Lohdkj gS ‘ks”k va’k vlR; gksus ls badkj gS A ** The aforesaid narration of the documents would clearly show that the plaintiffs never admitted the fact that their father Bahadur is son of Laghnu except in pedigree in which there is overwriting correcting Manglu as Laghnu, as such, alleged admission is unclear & unspecific and burden was rightly placed upon the defendants by the First Appellate Court and has rightly held that the defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiffs' father (Bahadur) was not son of Sonsai, but was son of Laghnu, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. I do not find any illegality in the said finding. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. 13. Accordingly, the second appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 14. A decree be drawn up accordingly.