Clear & Unambiguous Admissions in Pleadings or Correspondence Warrant a Speedy Decree Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Bombay High Court - 2025-09-24

Bombay High Court Decrees Property Suit on Admissions, Cites 'Debt of Justice' in Fraud Case

Mumbai: In a decisive application of procedural law to deliver a speedy judgment, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Sandeep V. Marne, has passed a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. The court found that clear and unambiguous admissions by the defendants regarding fraudulent property transactions made it impossible for them to succeed, thus obviating the need for a lengthy trial.

The ruling came in a suit filed by Shruti Mayank Shah, who sought to re-establish her title over a high-value Bandra flat that was fraudulently sold to other parties after her legitimate purchase.

The Case of the Twice-Sold Flat

The plaintiff, Shruti Mayank Shah, had purchased Flat No. 1304 in the '81 Aureate' building in Bandra for ₹11.75 crores through a registered Agreement for Sale dated December 14, 2020, from the developers, Ulltra Lifespace Private Limited (Defendant No. 1) and Pyramid Developers (Defendant No. 2).

However, in 2024, a series of fraudulent transactions emerged. A forged allotment letter was created in favour of Defendant No. 4, followed by a registered Agreement for Sale dated July 31, 2024, in favour of her husband, Defendant No. 5. This sale was executed by a non-existent entity named 'Ultra Life Space Pvt. Ltd.,' closely mimicking the name of the actual developer. Merely 22 days later, on August 22, 2024, Defendant No. 5 sold the same property to Defendant No. 6.

Upon discovering the fraud, Shah filed the present suit seeking a declaration of her title and the cancellation of the subsequent fraudulent agreements.

Arguments Before the Court

Plaintiff's Submissions: Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat, representing the plaintiff, argued for a judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. He highlighted that:

-The defendants had made clear admissions both in pre-litigation correspondence and in their court affidavits.

- An advocate for Defendants 3 to 6 had sent an email on November 17, 2024, admitting to "irregularities in the registered agreements" and stating they had "initiated the process of cancellation."

- In his affidavit, Defendant No. 5 admitted that fraud had been played on him and that forged documents were annexed to his sale agreement.

- Defendant No. 6, in his reply, stated he was "ready and willing to cancel the Sale Deed" and was "no longer interested in the Suit Property," subject to a refund from Defendant No. 5.

Defendants' Submissions:

- Dr. Yusuf Iqbal Yusuf, appearing for Defendant No. 5, argued that a judgment on admission could not be passed without a formal application. He also questioned the legitimacy of the plaintiff's original purchase and claimed his client was a bona fide purchaser. He contended that the admissions were not clear and unambiguous enough to warrant a decree.

- Mr. Ranit Basu, for Defendant No. 6, submitted that his client was also a bona fide purchaser who could, at most, be accused of negligence and sought to preserve his right to recover his money from Defendant No. 5.

Court's Analysis: The Power of 'Judgment on Admission'

Justice Sandeep V. Marne undertook a detailed analysis of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which empowers a court to pass a judgment based on admissions at any stage of a suit, even on its own motion.

The court first dismissed the objection that a formal application was necessary, noting that the provision allows the court to act "either on the application of any party or of its own motion."

Citing the Supreme Court in Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust , Justice Marne emphasized that the 1976 amendment to the rule was intended to give it a wider sweep, empowering judges to use it "ex debito justitiae" (as a debt of justice).

The core test, the court reiterated, is whether the admissions make it impossible for the party making them to succeed in the suit. The judgment highlighted pivotal excerpts from the defendants' affidavits and correspondence:

From Defendant No. 5's Affidavit: "I have realized the magnitude of the fraud by the concerned persons. Therefore, I am filing a Complaint with the Economic Offences Wing."

From Defendant No. 6's Affidavit: "the answering Defendant is ready and willing to cancel the Sale Deed... as this Defendant is no longer interested in the Suit Property.”

Justice Marne concluded that these statements, coupled with the pre-litigation emails, constituted clear and specific admissions. The court observed, "If the belief of Defendant Nos.5 and 6 turns out to be correct, they would be entitled to recover amounts allegedly paid by them... However, the moment Defendant No. 5 admits that the sale transaction... is fraud and the moment defendant No.6 gives up his claim... Plaintiff’s title in the suit premises needs to be restored based on the admissions so given."

Final Decision and Implications

The Bombay High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff based on these admissions. The court ordered and declared:

1. Shruti Mayank Shah is the sole and exclusive owner of the suit flat.

2. The subsequent Allotment Letter (May 9, 2024), Agreement for Sale (July 31, 2024), and Sale Deed (August 22, 2024) are illegal, void, and of no legal effect.

3. A permanent injunction was passed restraining the defendants from claiming any rights over the property.

The court clarified that the decree would not affect the defendants' rights to seek remedies against each other. This judgment serves as a strong reminder of the efficacy of Order XII Rule 6 in cutting short litigation where a party's own admissions render its case untenable, thereby upholding the principle of speedy justice.