Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ROSHAN DALVI, J.
Mr. H.K. Taneja & Ors.
Vs.
Mr. Bipin Ganatra
Notice of Motion No. 886 of 2009 with Notice of Motion No. 1509 of 2011 in Suit No. 1094 of 2007
Decided on: 22nd November, 2012
Admission of facts by defendant enjoins Court to pass judgment on admission under Order XII, Rule 6 of CPC. - The admission, therefore, falls precisely under the provision of Order XII, Rule 6 necessitating and enjoining the Court not to wait to determine the issue of ownership adoption and or possession of the defendant but to pass a judgment granting the aforesaid prayers which would no longer remain for adjudication upon such admitted facts.
Order XII, Rule 6 is a salutary provision. It is made not to get suits in which admissions of the claim of the plaintiff are made in whatever manner enmeshed in legal and judicial delays by having the plaintiffs to prove a case which is admitted. The rule is very wide. It includes admissions in the pleadings as also otherwise. It includes oral as well as written admissions. It includes admissions made at any stage of the suit and in any application of any party. It requires a judgment on admission to be passed by the Court on its own motion on the application of any party having regard to such admissions. It allows judgment for the part or full of the claim of the plaintiffs and requires the Court to pass the judgment without waiting for the termination of any other question betw een the parties and it also requires a decree to be passed in accordance with law.
It is required not to be adjudicated in the normal course by having the plaintiffs to prove the claim in the normal course when the suit would reach hearing, but upon the admission of the defendant himself. Of course, in this case, in any event, the plaintiffs would require only the tendering of the probate, since unchallenged, as a judicial record having a presumption of its correctness. Once it is seen that the defendant has admitted that the trust owns the suit flat and has shown his inability to sell the suit flat to Kesharvrao Bhosle as the defendant was not the owner of the suit flat and unequivocally claimed that the flat did not belong to him, but to the trust, who had sued him for eviction, no further issue remains between the parties.
The issue with regard to the ownership of the plaintiffs as Trustees would have been required to be framed upon the denial of that material fact in the written statement, but for the admission of that fact in the criminal complaint. The admissions, therefore, negate the denials. They expose the truth of the case set out by the defendant himself. If the suit were to proceed the plaintiffs would be required to do things :
One positive and one negative - to produce the probate, since unchallenged, to show their legal right, title and interest in the suit premises and to confront to the defendan t with the criminal complaint which he cannot back out from. It is this redundant exercise which is statutorily enjoined to be done away with.
The suit is filed by the Trustees of a Trust dated 28th June 1994. The Trustees claim as the owners of the suit Flat No.7-C, Woodland Co-operative Hsng. Society Ltd., 67 Peddar Road, Mumbai-400 026. The owner of the suit flat who created the trust bequeathed to the said trust the said property under his Will dated 5th July 1997. The Will has been probated. The trustees are, therefore, the legal owners of the suit flat. The Will recites that the deceased who was the owner of the flat resided in the flat with his wife, Urmila Shah. The deceased created a life interest in favour of his wife. She was to enjoy all the facilities in the flat including the movables. She was not to sell, transfer, alienate, lease, rent or create any third party rights in favour of any person. The Will specifically forbids her from inducting any person in the suit flat and 4 car parking places and from tenanting or sub-tenanting or licensing the said premises. The Will shows that the wife has been well provided and sets out the other movable and immovable assets held by the deceased. The Will makes no mention of any adopted child or any foster child.
2. The Defendant claims to be a nephew of the wife of the deceased and residing in the suit flat as such. The Plaintiffs claim that he trespassed in suit premises and has refused to handover peaceful possession despite promising to do so under letter dated 1st November 2006. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant has no right, title and interest in the suit flat. The suit, is, therefore, for declaration that the Defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit flat and is in unlawful possession and is trespasser. The suit is for recovery of possession and mesne profits.
3. In the written statement the Defendant claims to be the heir of the deceased. He claims that he was brought-up and educated by "the said family of foster parents". The Defendant claims to have been adopted by his foster parents, but claimed that his surname was not changed consequent upon the horoscope of the Defendant. The Defendant has sought to show in his written statement how he lived with the deceased and his wife as his foster parents and claimed to be in lawful occupation and possession of the suit flat. The Defendant also filed another suit being Suit No.2988 of 2007 for declaration that he was the heir of his foster parents and accordingly the sole owner of the suit flat. He claims that Plaintiffs do not have any right to the suit flat. He claims that after the death of his foster mother the Plaintiffs showed him the Will of the foster father, which he was shocked to see. He has not challenged the said Will or the probate thereof upon proving that he was the heir of the deceased pursuant to any adoption.
4. He claims that he himself filed a probate petition and craved leave to refer to and rely upon another Will. He has neither shown when the Petition was filed nor gave particulars of the Petition including its number. The Plaintiffs state that according to their knowledge it is Testamentary Petition No.534 of 2007. The Plaintiffs claim that it is pending in the office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. The Court desired to see the petition referred to and relied upon by the Defendant, the particulars of which the Defendant did not give and his Counsel could not answer. The Testamentary Petition No.534 of 2007 is seen to have been filed on 7th June, 2007 by the Defendant. The Petition had not been prosecuted at all since its filing.
5. The Defendant has denied that the Plaintiffs are trustees under the indenture of trust dated 28th June 1994 and called upon the Plaintiffs to prove the same. He has refuted that the Trust is the owner of the suit flat. This is despite the fact that the Will of the deceased was shown to him by his wife which he never challenged. He also claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased and his wife. He refuted that he trespassed into the suit flat or that he had promised to
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
