The authorities clearly established that in an action for judgment under Order 27, r 11 of LN 140A in default of defence, even in a claim for declaration of title to land, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to call evidence because under Order 19 of LN 140A the defendant was deemed to have admitted the allegations of the plaintiff. Accordingly, in an action for declaration of title to land and recovery of possession under Order 27, r 11, judgment in default of defence could be entered for both the recovery of possession and for the declaration of title. However, judgment in default of appearance could only be given for the recovery of possession, but not for [pg78] the declaration of title. Republic v Agboka VI; Ex parte Dei II [1984-86] I GLR 581, CA cited.