JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, District Chamba, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 16/2024 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Dalhousie, H.P. in Civil Suit Reg No. 83 of 2016. 2. The plaintiff’s case in the trial court, in brief, was that he, along with the defendant and other co-sharers, was recorded as a joint owner in possession of land comprised in Khata-Khatauni No. 66/86min, Khasra Nos. 354, 726, 727, 731, and 732, measuring 03-02-00 bighas, situated at Mauza Jasoor, Hadbast No. 277, Up- Tehsil Sihunta, District Chamba, H.P. Though the land was jointly owned by the parties and other co-sharers, no formal partition had taken place, and they were in possession as per their respective shares in accordance with a family settlement, having also raised constructions thereon. The plaintiff had constructed his house over a portion of Khasra No. 732 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land"), which was allotted to him in the family settlement, and he was in exclusive possession of the said land. 3. It was averred that the plaintiff was using another portion of Khasra No. 732 as a passage to access his house, and consequently, the defendant had no right, title, or interest over the same. The defendant’s single- story house was situated on the lower side of the passage. It was also contended that the defendant had begun constructing a second story on his house and, in the process, started erecting a pillar on the plaintiff’s passage, disregarding the family settlement, which would considerably reduce the passage’s width and make it difficult for the plaintiff to pass through or carry heavy household articles. The defendant had also gathered construction materials like sand, cement, gravel, and iron bars and engaged labourers to complete the unauthorized construction, including laying a lintel. The cause of action arose in the second week of June, 2016 when the defendant began erecting the pillar on the plaintiff’s passage and again on 23.06.2016 when the defendant refused to acknowledge the plaintiff’s claim. The cause of action arose in the second week of June, 2016 when the defendant began erecting the pillar on the plaintiff’s passage and again on 23.06.2016 when the defendant refused to acknowledge the plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a decree of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the defendant from raising any construction over Khasra No. 732 and a Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant to dismantle any construction raised during the suit’s pendency. 4. Upon notice, the defendant filed a written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the plaintiff not approaching the court with clean hands. On merits, the revenue record was not disputed, and it was admitted that the parties were in possession of their respective portions, but the existence of any family settlement was denied. While the plaintiff’s house was acknowledged, its location on Khasra No. 732 was disputed, and it was denied that any passage existed. The defendant asserted that no new construction was being raised; rather, the work was being carried out on the existing house. The suit was alleged to be retaliatory, as the defendant’s wife had lodged a complaint against the plaintiff at PP Sihunta, resulting in him being ordered to furnish bonds of Rs. 2000/-. Another complaint filed by the defendant’s wife on 31.08.2013 was decided on 08.01.2015 by the SDM Bhatiyat, and the present suit was claimed to be a consequence of these proceedings. The defendant denied any cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and prayed for the suit’s dismissal. 5. Based on the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 05.11.2019: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct, as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi, as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD. 8. Relief. 6. The parties led their respective evidence. The plaintiff, Sh. Maan Singh, appeared as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi, as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD. 8. Relief. 6. The parties led their respective evidence. The plaintiff, Sh. Maan Singh, appeared as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, along with a copy of the Jamabandi Ex. PW-1/B and photographs Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. The defendant, Sh. Hem Raj, appeared as DW-1 and filed his affidavit Ex. DW-1/A, also examining Sh. Jiwan Kumar as DW-2. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2024, decreed the suit by answering issues No. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and issues No. 3 to 7 in the negative, thereby restraining the defendant from raising any construction over the suit land and directing the demolition of any pillar erected thereon. 7. Aggrieved by this decision, the defendant filed a first appeal contending that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that no Tatima or other documentary evidence was produced to prove the plaintiff’s possession over Khasra No. 732 or the existence of any passage. It was further argued that the appellant had not raised any new construction but had only carried out work on the existing ground floor in 2013, well before the suit’s filing. The judgment was assailed as being based on conjectures and surmises, with evidence not being appreciated in the correct perspective. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree be set aside. The first appeal was dismissed therefore the present second appeal. 8. Heard the parties and perused the impugned judgements. 9. In the Present case, the revenue records reflected joint ownership of the suit land, the defendant in his cross-examination had categorically admitted the existence of a family settlement whereby Khasra No. 732 was specifically allotted to the plaintiff. This admission assumes significance in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court's ruling in Bharat Singh and Anr. vs Bhagirathi ( AIR 1966 SC 405 ), which held that admissions are substantive evidence under Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, though not conclusive proof. This admission assumes significance in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court's ruling in Bharat Singh and Anr. vs Bhagirathi ( AIR 1966 SC 405 ), which held that admissions are substantive evidence under Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, though not conclusive proof. The Court observed that duly proved admissions remain admissible evidence regardless of whether the admitting party appears as a witness or is confronted with contradictory statements, as the purpose of proving admissions differs from mere contradiction under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. 10. Applying this principle, the defendant's clear admission regarding the family settlement and the plaintiff's exclusive possession of Khasra No. 732 became substantive evidence of the plaintiff's lawful possession, notwithstanding the absence of formal partition documents. Though the plaintiff could not specify the exact dimensions of the alleged passage and acknowledged the defendant's occasional use of it, his consistent claim of exclusive rights over Khasra No. 732 under the family arrangement remained uncontroverted in material aspects. 11. While no documentary evidence conclusively established the existence of a defined passage, the Trial Court rightly focused on the defendant's admission as substantive proof of the plaintiff's entitlement to the suit land. The defendant's attempt to resile from this position through his witness (DW-2), who denied any formal partition, could not negate the evidentiary value of his prior admission. As held in ‘Bharat Singh’s case, the weight to be attached to such an admission is distinct from its admissibility, and in the present case, the defendant's unambiguous acknowledgment of the family arrangement carried decisive weight in upholding the plaintiff's claim. 12. Both the courts below have correctly and concurrently restrained the defendant from raising any construction over the suit land and directed him to demolish the pillar if any erected over it. 13. Therefore, in the present facts and attending circumstances, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal, is dismissed, as there arises no question of law much less a substantial question of law. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.