Admissions in earlier litigations serve as substantial proof for decreeing a suit under Order XII Rule 6, particularly when compliance with the agreement is undisputed by the defendant.

JUDGMENT:

JITENDRA JAIN, J.

1. The plaintiff has made an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (CPC) for passing a decree in its favour and against defendant nos.1 to 3 with a direction to these defendants to execute the deed of conveyance and power of attorney with respect to land admeasuring 5,412 sq.mtrs. bearing CTS No.1196- E Village Kanjur, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District and to handover possession of the said suit property to the plaintiff. The present suit is only with respect to property bearing CTS No.1196-E which is referred to as the “suit property”.

2. Order XII Rule 6(1) of the CPC deals with judgment on admissions. It provides that where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, the Court may at any stage of the suit and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

3. Order XII Rule 6(2) states that whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.

4. In short, Order XII Rule 6 provides that where the case of the plaintiff has been admitted by the defendants then instead of proceeding with the trial, the Court can pronounce the judgment on the admission itself. Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain from the pleadings and judicial proceedings whether defendant no.1 has admitted the claim of the plaintiff.

5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the plaintiff states that he is only pressing prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the suit and not prayer clause (d). Therefore, the application and judgment is restricted only to prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the suit which read as under:-

“(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that said Development Agreement dated 16th April 2003 (Exhibit 'D' hereto) is valid, subsisting and binding on Defendant No.1;

(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 or any of them to specifically perform the said and, inter-alia, to execute the conveyance with respect to the Suit Property being a plot of land admeasuring 5,412 square meters and bearing CTS No. 1196-E situate lying and being at Village Kanjur, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District_and admit the execution before the relevant authorities.

(c) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to handover the possession of the Suit Property being a plot of land admeasuring 5,412 square meters and bearing CTS No. 1196-E situate lying and being at Village Kanjur, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District, to the Plaintiff.”

6. Mr.Cama, learned counsel ably assisted by Ms.Ayushi Anandpara made submissions on behalf of the plaintiff and Mr. Shah made submissions vehemently opposing the application and suit on behalf of defendant no.1-society.

7. On 15 December 2001, defendant no.1 passed a resolution for development of the larger property including the suit property. In paragraph 11 of the said resolution, it is agreed amongst the members of defendant no.1-society that for creating interest of contractor over the suit property, society shall give power of attorney to contractor and after fulfilling all the terms in this regard, society shall have no right over this land and the contractor shall hav