SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1702

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
M.S. JAWALKAR, J.
Shiraz S/o Khurshedji Doongaji - Petitioner 
Versus
Jehangir S/o Khurshedji Doongaji - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5450 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Shri Anand Jaiswal, Senior Advocate assisted with Shri C.S. Samudra, Advocate for petitioners
Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for respondent

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.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Decree on admission - Petitioners challenged the rejection of their application for a decree on admission regarding partition of property - Respondent admitted the plaintiffs' rights in the suit property through written statements and a family settlement - The trial court's rejection was deemed erroneous as the admissions warranted a decree without trial. (Paras 2, 12, 41)

(B) Family Settlement - The execution of a family settlement is binding even if not registered, provided it has been acted upon - The doctrine of election prevents a party from accepting benefits under a settlement while denying its terms. (Paras 22, 39)

(C) Discretion of Court - The court has discretion under Order XII Rule 6 to grant a decree based on admissions, which should be exercised judiciously, especially when admissions are clear and unambiguous. (Paras 40, 41)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, siblings, sought partition of property inherited from their deceased parents, claiming equal shares. The respondent admitted the plaintiffs' rights in the written statement and through a family settlement executed in 2016.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion properly and that the admissions warranted a decree for partition.

Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for a decree on admission despite clear admissions by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the admissions made by the respondent in the written statement and the family settlement were sufficient to grant a decree without trial, emphasizing the binding nature of the family settlement.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; the trial court's order quashed and a decree on admission to be passed.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 18.07.2023 passed Below Ex.26 in Special Civil Suit No.46/2020 by 6th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, by which the application filed by the petitioners/Orig. Plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC for passing a decree on admission is rejected.

3. The petitioners/Orig. Plaintiffs and respondent/Ori. Defendant are the real brothers and sisters and children of Late Shri Khurshedji Edulji Doongaji and Smt. Najoo w/o Khurshedji Doongaji. The petitioners/Orig. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for Partition, Separate Possession, Mesne Profit and Perpetual Injunction against the Respondent/Ori. Defendant in respect of the 'suit property', which is described in Para 2 of the plaint.

4. According to the petitioners/Orig. Plaintiffs the petitioners and respondent each are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property. The names of petitioners/Ori. Plaintiffs and respondent/Ori. Defendant have been duly recorded in the revenue record and the same has also attained finality.

5. The suit property was jointly purchased in the name of the parents of the petitioners and the respondent namely Shri Khurshedji Edulji Doongaji & Smt. Najoo Khurshedji Doongaji. On 23/07/1987 Shri Khurshedji Edulji Doongaji expired leaving behind petitioners, respondent and their mother Smt. Najoo w/o Late Khurshedji Doongaji as his only surviving legal heirs. After his demise undivided share in the suit property devolved upon the petitioners/ Orig. Plaintiffs and the respondent / Orig. Defendant and their mother Smt. Najoo Doongaji by way of succession with equal undivided share in it. On 18/12/2016, Indenture of Family Settlement was executed between the petitioners and the respondent wherein they agreed to partition the suit property and their mother Smt. Najoo Doongaji relinquishing her undivided 1/4th share in the suit property in favour of the petitioners and the respondents.

6. After execution of the ‘Indenture of Family Settlement’ the Company Petition No. 28/2016 JehangirVs. M/s. Stewols India was unconditionally withdrawn by the respondent. The petitioners filed Spl. C. S. No.46/2020 for Partition and Separate Possession of the suit property. The respondent/Orig. Deft. filed his written statement wherein he unequivocally admitted the 1/3 share of petitioner No.1 & petitioner No.2 in suit property. On 30/11/2022, Application was filed by the petitioners at Exh.-26 under Order 12, Rule 6 of CPC for passing a Decree on admission dated 31/03/2023. Reply at Exh.-28 is filed by the respondent opposing the application for passing a decree on admission. Learned Trial Court on 18/07/2023 rejected the application on unsustainable grounds. The aforesaid order is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Learned Trial Court failed to consider that from the perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the parties are not at issue with respect to their right, title and interest in the suit property at all. The respondent in his paragraph B (Preliminary Objection) has clearly admitted the right and title of the Plaintiffs in the suit property. In paragraph 6 of the written statement, the respondent has not denied the joint ownership as well as the family settlement executed by them. Further, in paragraph 13 of the written statement, the respondent has also admitted the plaintiffs right in the suit property.

8. Apart from this, the respondent had unconditionally withdrawn the Company Petition No.28/2016, after execution of Family Settlement dated 18/12/2016 wherein he unconditionally agreed to partition to suit property. As such, Plaintiffs' right, title and interest in the suit property not only admitted in the written statement but is also admitted by the Respondent in the "Indenture of Family Settlement dated 18/12/2016" pursuant to which the Company Petition No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top