The court emphasized the importance of clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions for the exercise of discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and highlighted the principle that possession follows title in cases involving vacant land.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. -

I.A. 8633/2021 (O-XII R-6 of CPC)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Order XIV Rule 1(6) of the CPC, seeking a decree on the basis of admissions made in the written statement filed by the defendants.

2. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing No. J-3, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi (suit property), on the ground that the plaintiff is the exclusive and absolute owner of the suit property.

3. Notice in this application was issued on 10th August, 2022. Subsequently, the reply has been filed on behalf of the defendants and the rejoinder thereto has also been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.

4. The case set up by the plaintiff is that:

(i) The plaintiff and his two brothers Late Sh. Mohinder Singh and Late Sh. Brijender Singh, were the joint owners of five plots bearing No.J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4 and J-20 situated in South Extension Part-I, New Delhi.

(ii) Vide partition deed dated 21st June, 1965, plots bearing No. J-1 and J-3 fell to the share of Late Sh. Mohinder Singh, whereas plot bearing No.J-2 and J-4 fell to the share of Late Sh. Brijender Singh.

(iii) Late Sh. Mohinder Singh died intestate on 27th April, 1985 leaving behind 5 Class I legal heirs, comprising his mother, first wife, Vidya Choudhary and a daughter from the first wife, Sangeeta and second wife, Anupama and a son from the second wife, Rahul Chaudhary.

(iv) There was a dispute between the two wives of Late Sh. Mohinder Singh, Vidya Choudhary and Anupama, as a result of which, a civil suit being CS(OS) 841/2004 was filed by Vidya Choudhary in which, the plaintiff was impleaded as the defendant no.2 and the defendants no.1 to 4 in the present suit were impleaded as the defendants no.6 to 9 therein.

(v) Vide registered Sale Deed dated 20th May, 2005, Anupama and Rahul Chaudhary transferred 2/3rd undivided share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The suit property is a vacant plot of land ad measuring 270 sq. yards.

(vi) The 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property that fell to the share of the mother of the plaintiff and Late Sh. Mohinder Singh, Smt. Shiv Devi, was bequeathed to the plaintiff vide registered Will dated 27th October, 2004, executed by Shiv Devi, who expired on 20th January, 2005.

(vii) Another civil suit CS(OS) 243/2006 was filed by the plaintiff before this Court, the subject matter of which was other properties left behind by Late Sh. Mohinder Singh.

(viii) Both the suits were settled amongst the family members of Late Sh. Mohinder Singh as well as the plaintiff in October, 2015. I.A. No.23503/2015 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC was filed in CS(OS) 243/2006, wherein all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Mohinder Singh agreed to surrender their rights, title and interest in all properties including the suit property, in favour of the plaintiff.

5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, it has been pleaded that:

(i) The plaintiff is neither the owner, nor in possession of the suit property.

(ii) The Sale Deed dated 20th May, 2005 was executed in favour of the plaintiff by Rahul Chaudhary and Anupama, who themselves were not the owners of 2/3rd undivided share in the suit property.

(iii) Late Sh. Mohinder Singh never divorced his first wife, Vidya Choudhary and therefore, she continued to be his legally wedded wife. Anupama and Rahul Chaudhary have admitted in I.A. No. 23503/2015 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC that Vidya Choudhary and Sangeeta were the only legal heirs of Late Sh. Mohinder Singh and had rights in the properties of Late Sh. Mohinder Singh.

(iv) No Will was ever executed by Late Smt. Shiv Devi in favour of the plaintiff. In any case Late Smt. Shiv Devi did not have any right, title and interest in the suit property and therefore, she could not have willed any portion of the suit property