Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ.
Pushpa & Ors. – Appellants
versus
Dayawati & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8267 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2026) (Diary No. 26304 of 2019)
Decided On : 29-05-2026
Key Points: - The Court held that the admission must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal to justify a decree under Order XII Rule 6 (p.39, p.40, p.41) (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court’s revisional interference cannot substitute its own interpretation of pleadings where triable issues exist; revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot reassess findings of fact as per Section 115 (pp.52-54) (!) (!) (!) . - The appellate court set aside a High Court decree based on an alleged admission, restored the trial court’s Order XII Rule 6 application, and clarified that issues requiring evidence indicate the dispute is triable (pp.55-58) (!) (!) (!) . - The written statement as a whole must be read holistically; isolated portions cannot constitute an unequivocal admission (pp.46-47) (!) (!) . - The case clarifies that where substantial triable issues exist and evidence is required, a decree on admission without trial is inappropriate (pp.49-51) (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of family property dispute and litigation history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 2. opposing arguments regarding valid admission for order xii rule 6 cpc. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 3. standard for judgment on admissions requires clear, unequivocal proof. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 4. receipt of funds does not constitute admission of legal liability. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction cannot ignore triable questions of fact. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 6. setting aside decree and remanding for trial on merits. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
JUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Revision Petition No. 53 of 2018 preferred by respondent No.1 (plaintiff), whereby the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, set aside the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge-04, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and proceeded to decree the suit for recovery of Rs.44,79,167/- with interest against defendant No.3 (late father of the appellants), on the basis of admission of receipt of Rs.3 crores in his Written Statement dated 25.03.2010 in CS (OS) No. 2502 of 2009 before the High Court.
4. The parties to the present proceedings are members of a Hindu family. The family tree is as follows: Shis Ram (Defendant No.1/Respondent No.2) and his wife Chameli (Defendant No.2/Respondent No.3) had five children, namely, Dayawati (Plaintiff/Respondent No.1), Daya Ram (Defendant No.3), Har Prasad (Defendant No.4/Respondent No.4), Ramrati (Defendant No.5/Respondent No.5), and Leelawati (Defendant No.6/Respondent No.6). The present appellants, namely, Pushpa (Appellant No.1), Saroj Kumari (Appellant No.2), and Sudesh (Appellant No.3) are the daughters and legal heirs of Defendant No.3.
5. The brief facts of the case as per the appellants are that in August 2007, agricultural land admeasuring approximately 31 bighas 9 biswas, owned by the family, was sold by respondent No.2 for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,31,25,000/-. The entire amount was received by respondent No.2 in his personal account.
6. On 21.12.2009, respondent No.1 filed a suit bearing CS (OS) No. 2502 of 2009 before the High Court seeking recovery of Rs.45,00,000/- with interest, partition of family properties and permanent injunction, jointly and severally, against her father, mother, brothers and sisters. The case pleaded in the plaint was that in pursuance of the ancestral agricultural land sold in August 2007 for a consideration of approximately Rs.15 crores, respondent No.1 was entitled to her share in the sale proceeds.
7. On 25.03.2010, defendant No.3 filed his written statement stating that the suit was collusive and through a family settlement, each had received Rs.3 crores out of the total sale proceeds of Rs.15 crore.
8. The High Court passed a preliminary decree for partition on 17.08.2011 holding that the parties were entitled to equal shares in the properties and sale proceeds and granting each party a 1/7th share in the suit property.
9. On 15.03.2013, in FAO (OS) No. 560 of 2011 preferred by defendant No.3, the Division Bench of the High Court modified the preliminary decree for partition granting each party a 1/6th share in the suit property, since respondent No.6 relinquished her share.
10. Thereafter, by order dated 03.09.2015, a final decree in respect of immovable properties was passed, however, the question relating to recovery of Rs.45,00,000/- with interest was kept open. The High Court framed the following issues and the matter was directed to proceed for evidence:
(2) If issue No.(1) is decided in favour of the pla
For a decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the admissions must be clear, unambiguous, and unconditional; evasive denials do not qualify.
Admissions in pleadings or related documents allow for expedited judgments under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, affirming that clear and unequivocal admissions can preclude the need for further evidence.
(1) Judgment on admission – For exercise of discretion by Court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, admission must be unequivocal – No particular form of admission is necessary – Judgment on admission is ....
A decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC requires clear, unconditional admissions of fact, which were absent in this case.
The court emphasized the need for clear admissions and the appropriate use of discretion under Order XII Rule 6, ruling that judgments on admissions must be based on unequivocal facts, necessitating ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the court to pass judgment on admission, the requirement for clear and categorical admission, and the possibility of a p....
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.
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
