Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K. Somashekar and Venkatesh Naik T., JJ.
K.S. Ramesh – Appellant
versus
K.S. Rangaswamy and Ors. – Respondents
Regular First Appeal No.1676 of 2019 (Par)
Decided on 3.3.2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 – Judgment on admission – Judgment on admission is not a matter of right, but it is in discretion of Court – Court must be satisfied that admissions made are clearly unambiguous, definite and unequivocal – For exercise of discretion by Court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, admission must be unequivocal – No particular form of admission is necessary – It is open to Court to pass judgment on admissions in pleadings or otherwise – Admission may be made either specific or constructively. (Paras 25 and 28)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 58 and 115 – Judgment on admission – Partition suit – Defendant has made clear and unequivocal admission in his written statement regarding Will executed by his father – Under Section 58 of Evidence Act, fact once admitted need not be proved – Admission can be regarded as substantive evidence on which decree can be passed – Admissions by Appellant/defendant in written statement constituted deliberate and conscious acknowledgement of facts, binding on him under Section 115 of Evidence Act and Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Admissions preclude need for further evidence or trial, ensuring judicial efficiency – Trial Court’s Judgment aligns with established legal principles and dismissal of appeal does not affect rights of defendant to assert his claims independently – Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC affirmed. (Paras 27, 28, 29 and 30)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT (CAV)
K. Somashekar and Venkatesh Naik T., JJ.—The appeal in R.F.A.No.1676/2019 is preferred by the appellant Shri K.S. Ramesh, challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019 rendered by the XXXIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No.4955/2013 and seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019 allowing I.A.No.6 filed by the respondents under Order XXII Rule 6 CPC and consequently, to direct the trial Court to restore the suit.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is defendant and respondent Nos.1 to 8 are plaintiff Nos.1 to 8.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as follows:-
Respondents had filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the appellant seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs and defendant are joint family members and to divide the property and alternatively, if the defendant is not agreeing the suit properties be divided into five shares among the children of K.R. Seetharamaiah and allot 1/5th share each. As per the case of the plaintiffs, one K.R. Seetharamaiah was the original propositus of the family, who married Smt. K.S. Nagalaxmi as per Hindu customs and rituals. Out of their wedlock, four sons and a daughter were born viz., K.S. Ranga-swamy, K.S. Nagesh, V.G. Jayashree, K.S. Murali and K.S. Ramesh. K.S. Murali died on 04.03.2013 leaving behind plaintiff Nos.3 to 5. The daughter V.G. Jayashree died on 09.08.2011 leaving behind plaintiff Nos.6 to 8. During the lifetime of K.R. Seetharamaiah, he acquired movable and immovable properties out of his earnings in and around Bengaluru and Mysuru. During the life time of K.R. Seetharamaiah, he was allotted a site bearing No.434, 1st Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010 by the then C.I.T.B.(Now known as BDA) measuring East- West 90 feet and South - North 45 ft and accordingly, executed lease-cum-Sale deed in favour of K.R. Seetharamaiah and thereafter, obtained absolute sale deed from CITB, Bengaluru. Thereafter, K.R. Seetharamaiah sold a portion of his property to an extent of East - West 30 feet, North - South 45 feet on the eastern side of the property in favour of one S.N. Murthy under registered Sale Deed dated 10.04.1974 and remaining extent measuring East - West 60 feet and North- South 45 feet along with vacant land lying to the East is the ‘A’ schedule suit property. In the year 1993, K.R. Seethramaiah applied for allotment of site before Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short ‘MUDA’) and on consideration of the same, site bearing No.2089 measuring 30 x 40 feet (‘B’ schedule property) was allotted in favour of K.R. Seetharamaiah and hence, an absolute sale deed was executed in his favour by MUDA on 19.09.2003. During the life time of K.R. Seetharamaiah, he executed a Will in respect of suit schedule properties on 03.03.2007 bequeathing the same in favour of his sons and daughter. Smt. K.S. Nagalaxmi, W/o. K.R. Seetharamaiah died on 08.01.2013 and K.R. Seetharamaiah died on account of old age on 07.02.2013, leaving behind his children as his legal representatives. There are no other ancestral properties belonging to the plaintiffs and defendant, except the suit properties, which was acquired by K.R. Seetharamaiah, out of his earnings. Thus, these properties are self-acquired properties of K.R. Seetharamaiah. As per the Will executed by K.R. Seetharamaiah, schedule ‘B’ property shall devolve to the defendant and in ‘A’ Schedule property, the ground floor shall be divided among four sons and 1st Floor portion was given to the children of his daughter Smt. V.G. Jayashree. In the Will, it is recited that in respect of ground floor, if the property was not able to divide among the sons and legal representatives of K.S. Murali, in which, eventuality, the property may be sold and the sale proceeds shall be divided among the children of K.R. Seetharamaiah. Therefore, the plaintiffs requested the defenda
(1) Judgment on admission – For exercise of discretion by Court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, admission must be unequivocal – No particular form of admission is necessary – Judgment on admission is ....
Admissions in pleadings or related documents allow for expedited judgments under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, affirming that clear and unequivocal admissions can preclude the need for further evidence.
A family settlement, even if unregistered, is binding if acted upon, and courts can issue a decree on admission when clear admissions exist, emphasizing the discretionary nature of Order XII Rule 6.
The court emphasized that admissions in pleadings and family settlements can warrant a decree without trial under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, reinforcing the binding nature of such settlements.
The discretionary nature of the power under Order XII Rule 6, the need for clear and unambiguous admissions, and the discretion of the court in delivering a quick judgment on admission.
Prior oral partition established through documentary evidence negated plaintiffs' claims for additional shares in joint family properties under Hindu Succession Act.
The court emphasized the need for clear admissions and the appropriate use of discretion under Order XII Rule 6, ruling that judgments on admissions must be based on unequivocal facts, necessitating ....
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
