1. This appeal turns upon a short point. The contest relates to certain property. The plaintiff in the suit Srimati Ajimannessa Bibi makes a title to the properly under a hiba-bil-ewaz dated the 28th Chaitra 1316 B.S. (April 1910) executed in her favour by her deceased husband Kebad Ali. The principal defendant, defendant No. 3, on the other hand claims to have purchased the property in the year 1901 at a Court sale held in execution of a decree obtained against' Kebad Ali. One of the questions which arose was, whether the property claimed by the plaintiff was identical with the lands specified in the sale-certificate issued to defendant No. 3. On this point the learned Munsif in the Trial Court makes the following statement in the course of his judgment: 'The learned Pleader for the plaintiff concedes in his argument that the land in suit is included in the' lands mentioned in the sale-certificate.' Now the learned Munsif is plainly speaking of an admission made by the plaintiffs Pleader of the identity of the land claimed in the suit with the land mentioned in the sale-certificate. In the Court of Appeal below, however, the learned Subordinate Judge entirely gave the go-by to this ad-mission. He seems to have treated the admission or concession as an admission made for the purpose of the argument. That is clearly not the nature of the admission and it is impossible on the face of the record, regard being had to the whole tenour of the Munsif's judgment, to accept the learned Judge's view of what took place in the Trial Court. Having disregarded the admission the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the property in question is not identical with the property mentioned in the sale-certificate and so finding, he took what may be termed a short cut to the decision of the appeal. I am of opinion that he was not entitled to deal with the case in that way. An admission of fact by a learned Pleader is binding on his client and the opposing party cannot be arbitrarily deprived of the benefit of the admission. If any authority is required, reference may by made to the case of Sreemutty Dossee v. Pitambur Pundah 21 W.R. 332. It is evident that the learned Subordinate Judge did not appreciate or realize the legal effect of the admission as an admission by a Pleader on behalf of his client.
2. I may add that if there was any mistake on the Munsif's part, it seems extraordinary that no steps were taken in his Court by way of review to correct the plain and clear statement in his judgment. The point again was not taken in the grounds of appeal filed in the lower Appellate Court and it is impossible to suppose that if the admission had not in fact been made, that point would have been omitted. In the circumstances, I am of opinion that the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court must be set aside and the case must be remanded to that Court in order that the appeal thereto may be re-heard on the footing that the admission in question was in fact made in the Trial Court. The costs of the appeal will abide the result.
3. I agree.