HUB LAL SINGH Vs. SHEO BALAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, Advocate, for the appellants and Kunwar R.C. Singh, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) The substantial questions of law, which has arisen in this case, are:

(3.) Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for appellants, stated that statement of Smt. Kailashi, defendant-respondent no. 4 did not qualify to be an admission under Section 18 of Act, 1872 and placed reliance on this Court's decision in Smt. Phekni Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and others, 2011 114 RevDec 658. He further contended that there were several contradictions in the statement of defendant-respondent no. 4 which have been ignored by Courts below. He lastly contended that this Court required LAC to consider two questions but those have not been addressed by LAC and, therefore, the impugned judgment of LAC is vitiated and in the teeth of the directions issued by this Court.