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

2025 Supreme(Pat) 1397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.
First Appeal No.131 of 2014
(4.12.2025)
Smt. Savitri Joshi & Ors. .... Appellants
vs.
Rameshwar Yagnik @ Lall Saheb & Ors. ... Respondent/s

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : M/s Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Kumar Gaurav, Sheshadri Kumari.
For the Respondents: M/s Jitendra Kishore Verma, Ravi Raj, Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, Sweta Raj, Achyut Kumar, Kumari Shreya, Ayush, Shreyash Goyal.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 – Judgment on admission – Decree for permanent injunction – Order XII Rule 6 of C.P.C. empowers Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of admission when such admissions are clear, categorical unconditional and capable of establishing rights of parties without requiring further evidence – Whether admissions are oral or in writing, Court is empowered at any stage of suit to give judgment on such admission – Provisions of Rule 6 are enabling, discretionary and permissive – They are not mandatory, obligatory or peremptory – Even when consent is recorded, Court must ensure that admission is clear, unambiguous, and covers material facts necessary to justify decree – Consent alone cannot substitute for proof where significant issues such as title, possession, or legality of transactions remain disputed. (Paras 35, 37, 40 and 51)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 91 and 92 – Best available evidence should be brought before Court to prove a fact or points in issue – Sections 91 and 92 are substantive provisions under Evidence Act, 1872 – Unless and until case falls under one or other exceptions enabling receipt of oral evidence on a written document, Court is precluded from entertaining oral evidence – However, tendering oral evidence against a written document is not totally barred – Oral evidence is admissible to show that document was never intended to be acted upon or in cases whenever true character of a document is questioned, extrinsic evidence by way of oral evidence is admissible – If language of an instrument does not yield clear meaning and is open to two interpretations, extrinsic evidence of surrounding circumstances could be adduced – In any document where there is a statement of fact other than terms of contract, oral evidence can be placed to prove or disprove the fact. (Paras 44, 45, 48, 49 and 50)

Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—Heard Learned counsel for both the parties.

2. The instant First Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 28.04.2014 and decree dated 23.05.2014 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge IV, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 72 of 2010 wherein the learned Trial Court disposed of the suit on admission and decreed in terms of pronouncement of compromise decree of Partition Suit No. 159 of 1949 and permanently restrained the appellants (defendants) to interfere in peaceful possession of respondents (plaintiffs) over the suit land.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as defendants-appellants or plaintiffs-respondents.

4. To understand the relationship between the parties to the suit is shown in the Genealogical Table (Schedule 1 of plaint) which is given below:—

5. As per the plaint, Bindhyawasini Pd. Yagnik (Jani) @ Bacchan Babu was common ancestor who died leaving behind Smt. Krishna Kumari Devi, his second wife from whom three sons and one daughter namely Rajeshwar Pd. Yagnik @ Babu Saheb, Rameshwar Pd. Yagnik @ Lall Sahab (P-1) and Chandeshwar Pd. Yagnik @ Kunwar Saheb and a daughter Manju Yagnik (Shukla) were born. First wife of Bindhyawasini Pd. Yagnik (Jani) predeceased and one son namely Durgashankar Yagnik @ Lala Maharaj was born who died leaving behind his son Tripura Shankar Yagnik (born through his first wife Rama Devi), second wife Manorma Devi and his son Arun Kumar Yagnik @ Bachhaji and six daughters namely Sudha Shukla, Shobha Bhatt, Subhashini Tiwari, Shakuntala Dave, Gaytri Sharma and Savitri Joshi. Rajeshwar Pd. Yagnik died leaving behind his widow Anjana Devi and a son namely Amit Yagnik. Chandeshwar Pd. Yagnik @ Kunwar Saheb also died leaving behind his wife Shanti Devi @ Renu Devi and three sons namely Anup Yagnik, Sudhanshu Yagnik and Ashutosh Yagnik (died unmarried) and a daughter Priti (Yagnik) Shukla. Bindhyawasini Pd. Yagnik died in 1974 and his second wife Krishna Kumari died in 1996.

6. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that a prior partition suit bearing Partition Suit No. 159 of 1949, between the ancestors of the parties was compromised on 03.01.1951. Under the terms of the compromise, Rameshwar Pd. Yagnik (plaintiff no.1) was allotted the entire land of village Charihani, tauzi no. 799, and Krishna Kumari Devi (mother of plaintiff no.1) was allotted the entire land of village Basantpur, tauzi no. 799. The parties came into possession of their respective shares, and the revenue records were mutated accordingly.

7. The plaintiffs-respondents alleged that during her lifetime, Krishna Kumari Devi, in order to protect her estate, executed a nominal and non-operative gift deed dated 31.01.1962 in favour of her step-granddaughters Sudha and Sakuntala (daughters of Durgashankar Yagnik), however, possession was never delivered, and the deed was later cancelled by a registered deed of cancellation in 1973. Subsequently, Krishna Kumari Devi executed a will dated 08.07.1978, bequeathing her entire share in village Basantpur to her youngest son Chandeshwar Pd. Yagnik (father of plaintiff no.2 Anup Kumar Yagnik), and upon her death in 1996, Chandeshwar Pd. Yagnik came into possession. After death of Chandeshwar Pd. Yagnik, possession continued with his widow wife.

8. It is alleged that defendant no.1 (son of Durgashankar Yagnik) after almost disposing the properties in his share with dishonest intention in collusion with other defendants and some antisocial elements managed to get their names mutated with respect to lands of Charihani and Basantpur Mauza after canceling the names of plaintiffs by showing some void, inoperative and dead papers and concealing the truth, and actual state of papers against which revision petition is pending for disposal before the learned Additional Collector, Bettiah. On the basis of the illegal Jamabandi, they are trying to dispose of lands in Schedule-2 to various persons of that area.

9. Apprehending further

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