Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VINOD GOEL, J.
Dayawati - Appellant
Versus
Shis Ram (Thru Lr) and Others - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 53 of 2018; Civil Miscellaneous No. 10816 of 2018
Decided on : 16-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Anand Yadav, Adv., Anita Tomar, Adv., Atul Kumar, Adv., Rupesh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows the court to pass judgment based on admissions of fact made by the parties, enabling speedy resolution of the dispute.
Headnote:
Order XII Rule 6 - Recovery of Rs.45 lacs - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Civil Suit for recovery of Rs.45 lacs and for partition and permanent injunction against the respondents. The court passed a preliminary decree of partition and a final decree in respect of the plots. The petitioner sought a judgment/decree against respondent No.3 for recovery of Rs.45 lacs with interest based on admissions made by respondent No.3.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that respondent No.3 had admitted to receiving an excess amount from the sale proceeds and that the petitioner was entitled to recover the excess amount. The court set aside the impugned order and decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner for recovery of the amount of Rs.44,79,167/- against respondent No.3.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.45 lacs from the defendants and whether she was entitled to interest on the amount awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows the court to pass judgment based on admissions of fact made by the parties. The court emphasized the importance of speedy judgment and held that the petitioner was entitled to a judgment/decree on admission.
Final Decision: The suit of the petitioner for recovery of Rs.44,79,167/- was decreed in her favor and against respondent No.3. The petitioner was also entitled to interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of filing the suit till realization of the decretal amount. The court disposed of the pending application and the Civil Suit accordingly.
VINOD GOEL, J.
1. The impugned order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge-04, South-West District, Dwarka, New Delhi (‘ADJ’) in Civil Suit No.80/2016 dismissing the application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for passing a decree for recovery of Rs.45 lacs with interest against respondent No.3 on his admissions, is the subject-matter of challenge in this revision petition.
2. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit being CS (OS) No.2502/2009 for recovery of Rs.45 lacs and for partition and permanent injunction against the respondents in this court on original jurisdiction in respect of three plots measuring 145 sq. yards, 178 sq. yards and 490 sq. yards comprising of khasra No.41 and a plot measuring 1008 sq. yards comprising in khasra No.65 situated in lal dora/abadi of village Jhuljhuli, Delhi. The father of the petitioner and of the respondents no.4 to 6 and the grandfather of respondents no.3 (i) to 3 (iii), namely, Shis Ram, since deceased, sold the ancestral agricultural land measuring 31 bigha 9 biswas in the month of August, 2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.15,31,25,000/-. Out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rs.1,73,75,000/- was paid to the petitioner by Late Shis Ram, since deceased between 20.08.2007 to 17.10.2007. The respondent No.1 Shis Ram (since deceased) assured the petitioner that further amount of Rs.45 lacs, being the balance of her 1/7th share out of the amount received by him in respect of sale of the ancestral agricultural land, would be paid to her. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that her brother, Daya Ram (since deceased) had taken more amount from their father.
3. In his written statement, the defendant No.3, Daya Ram (since deceased), inter alia, pleaded that he was given Rs.3 crores from the sale proceeds of Rs.15 crores.
4. This court, on 17.08.2011, passed a preliminary decree of partition with regard to the immovable properties to the effect that the parties to the suit are entitled to 1/7th share of the properties in the old lal dora comprising of khasra No.41 and plot No.65 in the extended lal dora/abadi of village Jhuljhuli, Delhi and sale proceeds of the agricultural land. Relevant paras 19 and 20 (i) read as under :-
“19. I find that there is no dispute to the property which is to be partitioned, or its ownership. I have found no merit in the contest by the defendant No.3. The above narration shows that the suit property and sale proceeds of agricultural land are to be divided equally amongst plaintiff and each of the defendants.
20. In view of the above, it is ordered as follows:-
(i) I hold and declare that each of the parties to the suit are entitled to one-seventh share in the properties in old lal dora comprising Khasra No.41 and Plot No.65 in the extended lal dora/abadi of village Jhuljhuli, Delhi and sale proceeds of agricultural land.”
5. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was carried by defendant No.3, Daya Ram (since deceased) in appeal being FAO (OS) No.560/2011. The mother of the parties, Smt. Chameli, did not desire share in the properties and the Division Bench disposed of the appeal by judgment dated 15.03.2013 by directing that the preliminary decree shall stand modified on disclaimer of any share by respondent no.6; the other respondents and the legal heirs of late Daya Ram together would be entitled to 1/6th share each. The relevant para of the judgment reads that “The result of the aforesaid would be that there is an agreement that the preliminary decree be modified to the extent that respondent No.6 will not claim any share and the other respondents will be entitled to 1/6th share each. The legal heirs of the appellant would thus be together entitled to 1/6th share.”
6. This court on 03.09.2015 passed a final decree in respect of the said four plots. By another order on the same day, this court framed the following issues:-
“(1) Wh
