The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear, unambiguous, unconditional, and unequivocal admissions for passing a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)

I.A. 19093/2022

1. Plaintiff has filed the present application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, thereby seeking directions to pass a decree in terms of the prayer (1) of the plaint in his favour and against the defendant.

2. Briefly, plaintiff has instituted the present suit for possession and recovery of mesne profit/damages. It is claimed that plaintiff's mother Late Smt. Ram Dai Khandelwal was the recorded owner of the property bearing No.39, Sadhna Enclave, New Delhi (hereafter, `the suit property') by virtue of Perpetual Lease Deed dated 09.03.1996. During her lifetime, she executed her last Will and Testament dated 18.07.1989 thereby bequeathing the suit property equally between her two sons namely, the plaintiff and Shri Suresh Chand Khandelwal. The competent Court also granted probate in favour of the plaintiff and Suresh Chand Khandelwal vide order dated on 22.07.2014 passed in Probate Case No.7/2010.

It is averred that Suresh Chand Khandelwal died intestate on 01.08.1992 leaving behind his wife and three daughters as the only legal heirs. The three daughters of Late Suresh Chand Khandelwal relinquished their respective shares in favour of their mother Smt. Sneh Lata Khandelwal by way of a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 13.05.2015. Later, under a Family Settlement Deed dated 18.05.2015, Smt. Sneh Lata Khandelwal surrendered her share in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The case set up by the plaintiff is that his mother Late Smt. Ram Dai Khandelwal during her lifetime entered into a collaboration agreement dated 19.08.1970 with the defendant, for constructing a building on the suit property. As per the Understanding, the defendant undertook to pay Sadhna Cooperative House Building Society Limited the balance amount, as may be required to be paid, for the allotment of the suit property. In this regard, he deposited a sum of Rs. 23,000/- as security with the plaintiff's mother. That as per the Collaboration Agreement, on receipt of intimation of grant of the Completion Certificate, plaintiff's mother was required to pay defendant the cost of construction alongwith 20% of the cost of construction as profit, as well as refund the security amount. The Collaboration Agreement further provided that till the time Completion Certificate was obtained, the plaintiff's mother was not required to pay the aforesaid amounts, and at the same time, the defendant would have the right to remain in occupation and actual possession of the suit property. The defendant never informed the plaintiff's mother about obtaining the Completion Certificate and thus continued in possession.

4. Plaintiff has further claimed that he came to know about the completion of construction only when a notice was received from DDA in the proceedings that were initiated by the defendant, for mutation of the suit property in his own name.

5. Mr. Bindra, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff submits that under the Collaboration Agreement, the defendant was only permitted to remain in possession and occupation of the suit property till the time he communicated the obtaining of the Completion Certificate. He further submits that the plaintiff is ready and willing to honour his obligations under the said Collaboration Agreement. Reference has also been made to the order dated 20.12.2019 wherein it was prima facie opined that holding the pleas of lawful title and adverse possession are antithetical to each other. Defendant, having himself relied on the Collaboration Agreement, has admitted to the plaintiff's ownership, and is thus required to hand over possession of the suit property.

6. Per contra, on behalf of the defendant, it has been contended that the defendant has not admitted to the plaintiff's claim of ownership. Rather, it is the case of the defendant that the suit property was in fact, sold by plaintiff's mother to the defendant, and the entire sale transaction was effected in this particular manner to save the partie