The court established that for a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the C.P.C. to be granted, the admissions must be unequivocal and clear, and the presence of serious factual disputes precludes such a judgment.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This revision petition is filed under Sec. 115 of C.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order dtd. 5/12/2022 rejecting I.A.No.9 filed under Order 12, Rule 6 of C.P.C. and consequently, dismiss the suit in O.S.No.138/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff and first defendant are the brothers and sons of Kotalani Venkataraya Reddy and Smt. Seethamma. It is contended that, after the death of father of the plaintiff and the first defendant, they have succeeded the joint family and ancestral properties and jointly cultivating the said lands. The plaintiff was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Education Department and his earnings had contributed the joint family and developed and purchased properties in the name of kartha, who is the first defendant herein, by contributing joint family funds. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff, first defendant and their mother Smt. Seethamma have purchased the property in the name of the first defendant, who is the kartha of the family in respect of land bearing Sy.No.82, 3rd Block measuring 4 acres and land bearing Sy.No.82/4 measuring 4 acres, totally 8 acres situated at Kamatampalli Village, Ronur Hobli, Srinivaspura Taluk under the registered sale deed dtd. 10/5/1968. The plaintiff and first defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the said land and the plaintiff is having definite share in the said land. It is also the case of the plaintiff that both the plaintiff and defendants have jointly purchased the land bearing Sy.No.13 measuring 2 acres, 16 guntas situated at Kannampalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk, under the registered sale deed dtd. 5/8/1991. It is also his case that, with an intention to form residential layout in the land bearing Sy.No.13 measuring 2 acre, 16 guntas situated at Kannampalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk, obtained conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose from the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura sub-division dtd. 29/8/1992 and formed residential layout i.e., site Nos.1 to 62 in different dimensions and the said layout has been approved by the Secretary Chinnasandra Mandal Panchayath.

4. It is also contended in the plaint that plaintiff has contributed substantial amount for the purchase of the said property, since plaintiff was an Assistant School Teacher and due to the reason that his name has could not be included in the sale deed, his brother V. Narayanaswamy, S/o. Late Venkataraya Reddy name has been included though he has not contributed any amount for the purchase of the said land and on good faith and cordial terms, his name has been included in the said sale deed. It is also contended that there was a registered partition deed dtd. 22/6/1998 and at the time of partition, the plaintiff was in death bed suffering from severe spinal card dislocation problem, due to the reason surgery was done and since the surgery was not successful and due to frequent recurring of spinal card problem, traction was fixed at the time of alleged partition deed dtd. 22/6/1998. For a period of one month, he was not able to get up from the bed and also he was not in a position to move from the bed, since he has suffered two surgeries. The copy of medical reports are produced and the defendant No.1, who is none other than the brother of the plaintiff has forced to get the partition of the family properties, taking advantage of the plaintiff illness and plaintiff has requested first defendant and panchayathdars for postponement of the partition for the reason that he has not been able to move and not able to read the papers and sign the documents for which the first defendant has become adamant and forced to get the partition deed and in the said parti