The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of clear and unambiguous admissions in pleadings, the requirement for meaningful and non-illusory pleadings, and the need for detailed pleadings to constitute a claim or defense.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. We are concerned in the above captioned batch of appeals with the provision of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the reason vide impugned judgment and order dated December 24, 2014 four identically worded suits against four defendants seeking a decree for recovery of possession and damages have been decreed in so far prayer made was for recovery of possession. The decree is on an admission.

2. The legislative provision, Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :-

“6. Judgment on Admission.-

(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, makes such order or gives such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

(2) 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.”

3. The word ‘otherwise’ after the expression ‘made either in the pleading or’ cannot be overlooked. To put it pithily, the Rule is expansive and would warrant its application if an admission is discernable, as long as it is unequivocal, unqualified and unambiguous, in any writing of a party; be it a letter, a communication, an internal document such a Statement of Account or a Balance Sheet etc. The purpose of the Rule is self-evident. To curtail the agony of parties and not subject them to the torture of a trial. Even otherwise, an issue has to be settled, as is apparent from Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. We cannot but overlook the use of the word ‘material’ in sub-Rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XIV of the Code which reads: ‘Issues arise where a material proposition of law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other.’

4. It is trite that material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must alleged in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must alleged in order to constitute his defence.

5. It is settled law that pleadings of parties have to be read meaningfully and not pedantically. Pleadings of parties have to be clear and not blurred, slurred or contrived. As was observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2011 (6) SCALE 677 Ramrameshwari Devi vs. Nirmal Devi (para 52) the pleadings are the foundation of a claim by a party and it is the bounden duty of the parties to lay their claim precisely and it is the duty of the Court to carefully scrutinize the pleadings as also the documents on which the pleadings are predicated. In the decision reported as AIR 1999 SC 1464 D.M.Deshpande vs. Janardhan Kashinath Kadam the Supreme Court highlighted the relevance of pleading material facts to constitute a claim or a defence thereto with reference to the decision of the Bombay High Court reported as AIR 1982 Bom.491 Nilesh Construction Co.vs. Gangu Bai, where, with reference to a plea of tenancy the Bombay High Court highlighted that the pleadings must disclose the details with reference to the day when the tenancy was created and the exact nature thereof; holding that it would be an insufficient pleading to constitute a defence for the defendant to simply plead that he was a tenant under the plaintiff. In the decision reported as AIR 2006 SC 1828 Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Owners & Parties Vessel MV Fortune Express the Supreme Court highlighted requirement to read pleadings meaningfully keeping in view the relied upon documents and see whether the pleading is meaningful; not illusory or vexatious. Illusory or vexatious pleadings would be no pleadings to challenge a material proposition of fact or law affirmed by one party.

6. Pertaining to a