Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Rajinder Singh Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
Manju Bhatia – Respondent
CS(OS) 172 of 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Judgment on Admission - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XII Rule 6
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration, injunction, and recovery of damages due to unauthorized occupation. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, seeking judgment based on the defendant's admissions in the written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the nature and scope of 'judgment on admission' under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and emphasized the requirement for clear and unambiguous admissions to grant relief. The court found that the plaintiff's application failed to establish a clear and unambiguous admission by the defendant, and the relinquishment deed relied upon by the plaintiff had been revoked by the defendant. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff's application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC could be granted based on the defendant's admissions in the written statement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, there must be clear and unambiguous admissions relevant to the issues at stake in the suit. The court emphasized that the power to grant relief under this rule is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, finding it devoid of merit.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
I.A. 9927/2021 (u/O XII R-6)
Facts of the Case
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction seeking directions qua eviction of the defendants and for recovery of mesne profits, damages on account of unauthorized occupation.
2. The plaintiff has filed the present application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the `CPC') praying for the following reliefs:
"a. Decree the suit of the plaintiff' on the basis of the admissions made by the defendant as have been enumerated in para 3 of the application.
b. Award costs of the suit and interest on the decreetal amount in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant."
Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the entire property bearing no. B-43 and B-44, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015 alongwith the roof rights.
4. On behalf of the plaintiff, it has been asserted that the defendant has been before this court and presented a written statement. As a result, the plaintiff's suit deserved to be decided given the defendant's admissions in its written statement.
5. On behalf of the plaintiff, it has been asserted that the defendant has categorically averred that a relinquishment deed was issued in the plaintiff's favour in paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections. Despite being accompanied by a condition, it is argued that the defendant's statement constitutes an unequivocal acknowledgment that she had legitimately given the plaintiff the rightful ownership of her whole share of the subject.
6. The land was formerly owned by the father of the plaintiff and the defendant, it is claimed by the defendant in paragraph 2 of the reply to the written statement. Therefore, it is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant's use of the term "earlier" in the aforementioned paragraph constitutes an unmistakable acknowledgment that the plaintiff is the only and absolute owner of the subject property as of the date in question.
7. The defendant has chosen not to respond to the plaintiff's claim that the defendant issued a relinquishment deed on 2ndSeptember, 2010, in the plaintiff's favour, renouncing her 20% interest in the suit property. As a result, the defendant has made a clear and unequivocal acknowledgment.
8. The defendant admitted in her written statement in Civil Suit No. 3380 of 2015 that she is residing in the suit property as a licensee with the plaintiff's permission and that she has no right, title, or interest in the subject property, according to the submission made on behalf of the plaintiff in para. 8(iv) of the plaint. Given the defendant's admission, it is clear that the defendant is only a licensee and has no ownership rights to the suit property.
9. On behalf of the plaintiff, it is said that the defendant had, through her affidavit of admission and denial, acknowledged all the documents that the plaintiff had filed.
10. It is argued that the plaintiff's suit deserves to be decided in light of the arguments put forward on his or her side.
Submissions on behalf of the Defendant
11. On behalf of the defendant, it has been asserted that the plaintiff's current application lacks any merit and is just intended to benefit from the plaintiff's biased account. It is further argued that the plaintiff does not stand to benefit in any way from the grounds cited by him, and as a result, the current application is likely to be rejected at threshold.
12. On behalf of the defendant, it is said that only the records that were the focus of the prior suit brought before this court have been accepted. As a result, the defendant's acknowledgment of the aforementioned documents cannot be interpreted as an acceptance.
13. On behalf of the defendant, it is said that the relinquishment deed signed in
For a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, clear and unambiguous admissions relevant to the issues at stake in the suit are required, and the power to grant relief under this rule....
A clear and unambiguous admission by a party can justify a summary judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a statement made by a party in another suit can be treated as an admission and form the basis for a judgment and decree upon admission in a su....
Decree on admission can be passed in a suit for possession, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and mesne profit where facts are undisputed and admitted.
The admission by the landlords did not confer tenancy rights only upon the Petitioner, but also upon his mother and siblings. Decreeing the suit in favor of the Petitioner alone would deny the rights....
(1) Tenant-Landlord relationship cannot come to an end on execution of Agreement to Sell – Even if consideration has been exchanged purchaser does not become owner of property till the time registere....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a clear and categorical admission is required for the court to decree a suit without trial under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, especially in the conte....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
