L.N. Mittal, J.

1. By this common judgment, I am disposing of two appeals i.e. RSA No. 432 of 2011 titled Smt. Lali Devi and others v. Jai Singh and others and RSA No. 440 of 2011 titled Subhash Chand v. Inder Singh and others. Civil Suit No. RBT 719 of 1998/2004 was filed by Sher Singh against Jai Singh etc. out of which RSA No. 432 of 2011 has arisen. The said second appeal has been filed by five daughters/legal representatives of Sher Singh original plaintiff, since deceased. Civil Suit No. 145 of 1998/2000 was filed by Subhash Chand and others against Inder Singh etc. Sher Singh was plaintiff No. 5 in that suit. RSA No. 440 of 2011 has arisen out of the said suit Said appeal has been filed by Subhas Chand-plaintiff No. 1 alone. Both the suits were consolidated and dismissed by common judgment and decrees dated 03.11.2007 by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohindergarh. Both first appeals arising out of the said two suits have been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide common judgment and decrees dated 05.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved, these two second appeals have been preferred.

2. Amaria @ Amar Chand common ancestor of the parties had four sons namely Sher Singh, Ramphal, Jage Ram and Subhash Chand and two daughters namely Suthia and Bhagwani. Against all of them, suit No. 281 dated 16.03.1996 was filed by sons of Ramphal and Jage Ram. Jai Singh son of Ramphal claimed to be adopted son of Sher Singh. Plaintiffs of that suit sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land, pursuant to family settlement. Defendants of that suit i.e. sons and daughters of Amar Chand filed written statement admitting the claim of plaintiffs of that suit and also made statement in Court admitting the said claim. Thereupon the said suit was decreed vide consent judgment and decree dated 15.04.1996.

3. The said judgment and decree dated 15.04.1996 have been challenged in both the present suits alleging that the same were obtained by fraud. Sher Singh alleged that his thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers on the pretext of getting him old age pension whereas some others alleged that their thumb impressions/signatures were obtained on some papers on the pretext of seeking partition of joint land. It was also alleged that Jai Singh was never adopted by Sher Singh. It was also alleged that there was no family settlement and there could be no family settlement with daughters of Amar Chand who were residing in their matrimonial homes. Some other similar pleas were also raised.

4. Contesting defendants, in whose favour consent decree dated 15.04.1996 had been passed, controverted the averments of plaintiffs of both the suits and defended the judgment and decree dated 15.04.1996. Grounds to challenge the same were denied. Various other pleas were also raised.

5. As noticed herein before, the lower courts have dismissed both the suits and first appeals. Hence these second appeals.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case files.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that no evidence was led in suit No. 281 of 1996 to depict that Jai Singh had been adopted by Sher Singh nor any such evidence has been led in the instant suits nor there was any occasion for Sher Singh to have transferred his entire land in favour of Jai Singh because Sher Singh had his own five daughters. The contention is completely misconceived. No evidence regarding alleged adoption or family settlement was required to be led in suit No. 281 of 1996 because claim of plaintiffs of that suit was admitted by defendants of that suit and admitted fact is not required to be proved. On the contrary, under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit having regard to such admissions. From this provision, it is apparent that suit may be decreed on the basis of admissions of the opposite party. In the instant case, suit No. 281 of 1996 was decreed on the basis of admissions made by defendants of the said suit by filing written settlement as well as by making statement in Court. In these circumstances, the question as to why Sher Singh transferred his land in favour of Jai Singh although Sher Singh was also having five daughters, would pale into insignificance because Sher Singh admitted that Jai Singh is his adopted son. It is not uncommon that land is transferred in favour of male descendants to the exclusion of female descendants. Consequently, the aforesaid contention raised by counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted.

8. Plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove the alleged fraud in passing of consent judgment and decree dated 15.04.1996. The said consent judgment and decree were passed not only on the basis of admission made in written statement filed by defendants of suit No. 281 of 1996 but also on the admission made by the said defendants by making statement in Court itself. Plea of the plaintiffs of the present suits that their thumb impressions/signatures had been obtained on blank papers on one pretext or the other, if substantiated, could possibly be accepted if there had been admission in written statement only. However, admission by making statement in Court stands on altogether different footings. Statement made in Court carries authenticity. It cannot be said that the said statement was recorded on blank paper already bearing thumb impressions/signatures of makers of the said statement. Such a contention cannot be ententained at all. If such contention i$ accepted, then there will be no end to litigation. No lis would attain finality. No sanctity would be attached to the proceedings of the Court. The whole system of administration of justice would collapse. It is not uncommon that such consent decrees are suffered voluntarily and later on, the persons who suffered such decrees, change their mind and challenge the same on different grounds. It is only where fraud is established beyond reasonable doubt that such consent decree can be set aside. Fraud when pleaded in civil case is also required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt just like criminal charge. In the instant case, very strong evidence of exceptional quality is required to prove the alleged fraud because defendants of suit No. 281 of 1996 had even made statement in Court admitting the claim of plaintiffs of that suit and, therefore, fraud is reasonably ruled out. Plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove the alleged fraud.

9. Judgment and decree dated 15.04.1996 could not be challenged in the instant subsequent suits on the ground that the judgment and decree were passed on the basis of wrong or incorrect facts or without adequate proof. Such challenge is barred by res judicata. The decree could be challenged on the ground of fraud but alleged fraud as pleaded, has not been established. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below to non-suit the plaintiffs in both the suits. Said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misappreciation or misreading of evidence. The said finding, therefore, does not warrant interference in second appeals. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in these second appeals. Both appeals are meritless and are accordingly dismissed.