Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Rajiv Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
Satya Naryan Jaiswal – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned in filing Special Leave Petition.
2. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court at Calcutta (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) dated 14.11.2024 in FAT 7 of 2024 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2024 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner- herein came to be dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Vth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, District Calcutta dated 2nd December 2023 in title suit no. 1068 of 2021.
3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner-herein shall be referred to as original defendant and the respondent-herein shall be referred to as original plaintiff.
4. It appears from the materials on record that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit premises in which the defendant claims to be the lawful tenant. The plaintiff instituted title suit no. 1068 of 2021 for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the defendant. The father of the defendant, Late Ranjan Ghosh was a regular tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 1700 including corporation taxes.
5. Ranjan Ghosh, the original tenant passed away on 13.07.2016. It appears that the
Judgment on admission – Where plaintiff claims a particular relief or reliefs against defendant and defendant makes a plain admission, former is entitled to relief(s) admitted by latter – Provisions ....
Whether there is a clear admission or not cannot be decided on the basis of a judicial precedent. The dispute with regard to the extent of the tenancy of the defendants being relevant in deciding the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a statement made by a party in another suit can be treated as an admission and form the basis for a judgment and decree upon admission in a su....
Judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC requires clear, unequivocal, and unconditional admissions; discretion must be exercised cautiously to protect the right to contest.
A decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 is not justified where no clear admission exists, especially when the validity of the tenancy agreement is contested.
A family settlement, even if unregistered, is binding if acted upon, and courts can issue a decree on admission when clear admissions exist, emphasizing the discretionary nature of Order XII Rule 6.
The court emphasized that admissions in pleadings and family settlements can warrant a decree without trial under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, reinforcing the binding nature of such settlements.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
