The main legal point established in the judgment is that an admission in a document can lead to the dismissal of a suit under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC if it is clear and unequivocal.

1. In this suit, the plaintiff seeks partition and permanent injunction against the defendants. The reliefs claimed include preliminary decree of partition in respect of properties being E-32, Satyawati Colony, Phase-III, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, and a vacant plot measuring 200 sq. yds., in HUDA Colony, Kurukushetra, Haryana, (which, the plaintiff contends, are joint family properties).

2.The brief facts necessary for the purpose of this order are that the plaintiff’s father, Shri Ved Prakash Shastri, defendant No.1 herein (who has since deceased during the pendency of the proceedings), shifted to Delhi in 1960 along with his mother. The plaintiff further avers that his grandfather, Pt. Vasu Dev Bhardwaj died in 1965. He was survived by his widow and two other sons and a daughter. The plaintiff avers that after the death of his grandfather, his legal heirs mutually divided and partitioned the joint family properties. The properties, according to the plaintiff, which fell to the share of his father, i.e. the defendant No.1, became ancestral properties. It is alleged that the defendant No.1 as karta of his joint family (comprising of his sons and other family members,) acquired the two properties for which partition decree is sought in this case. It is averred that these properties were purchased with the funds which fell partly to defendant No.1?s share in the partition with other members of his family as well as partly with his own funds.

3.The plaintiff avers that till 1986, he along with his wife and children were living in a small room on the first floor of E-32, Satyawati Colony, Phase-III, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter, they shifted to his house at Shalimar Bagh, a residential flat allotted to his wife, then serving in Reserve Bank of India. It is claimed that the plaintiff No.1 had been regularly visiting his mother, i.e. the plaintiff No.2, in order to look after her and also visited his room along with his family.

4. It is claimed that defendant No.1 (i.e. the plaintiff’s father) and the defendant No.2 (i.e. the plaintiff’s brother) are not inclined to give him any share in the joint family properties and are threatening to illegally dispossess him from joint family property, in his possession and unauthorizedly interfere with it. The plaintiff describes certain other proceedings including suit No.29/2001 titled “Sushil Bhardwaj vs. Ved Parkash etc.” in which the Court had granted him the liberty to see his ailing mother during the reasonable hours. The plaintiff further adverts to defendants No.4 and 5 having lodged police complaints against alleged illegal actions of defendants No.1 and 2 in relation to his mother.

5. The plaintiff avers that defendants No.1 and 2 are in possession of the complete front portion and one room in the back side of the property E-32, Satyawati Colony, Phase-III, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. It was alleged initially that the plaintiff No.2, i.e. the mother of plaintiff No.1 was in possession of the other property. During the proceedings, however, the plaintiff No.2 was dropped from the array of parties. The plaintiff also avers that on 20.5.2002, the defendants No.1 and 2 brought some unidentified persons and showed them the property. This led to a reasonable apprehension that the same would be sold thus depriving the plaintiff from his share. The plaintiff has thus sought for the decree on the basis of these allegations.

6. The defendant No.1, during his life time, had filed a written statement jointly with his other son, he the plaintiff brother. At a later stage, in the proceedings, the said written statement was permitted to be amended. Later, on 3.12.2006, the defendant No.1 died. The defendant No.3 also adopted the common written statement of defendants No.1 and 2.

7. Broadly, the defendants contend that the plaintiff is not in actual or constructive possession of the suit property. They deny that the plaint discloses any cause of action and that the suit i