Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.
Tani Sandhu Bhargava and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Shumita Didi Sandhu and Ors. – Respondents
Cont.CAS(C) 571 of 2025, RFA(OS) 49 of 2024, CM Appl. 72417 of 2024, CM Appl. 22102 of 2025, CM Appl. 30123 of 2025, CM Appl. 30124 of 2025, CM Appl. 30125 of 2025, CM Appl. 30144 of 2025 and CM Appl. 45593 of 2025, RFA(OS) 4 of 2025
Decided on 17.10.2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 – Judgment on admission – Provisions contained under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC are not mandatory in nature – Said provision merely confers discretionary power upon Court to pronounce judgment and decree on the basis of admissions made by parties – Use of expression “may” in the Rule, rather than “shall,” indicates that power is enabling and permissive, and not obligatory or peremptory – Even in presence of admission, Court retains full discretion to determine whether such admission is sufficient and conclusive enough to justify passing of judgment and decree – Order XII Rule 6 of CPC serves as a procedural mechanism for expeditious disposal of suits where entitlement of one party is apparent from clear admissions, but it does not create absolute right to judgment in every instance of admission – Court must, in each case, satisfy itself that admission relied upon is complete, definite, and incapable of any other interpretation before invoking said provision – Appellant, while filing written statement, is entitled to claim that such a document is not binding on rights and for the same, Appellant is not required to file either a counter-claim or a separate suit – Appellant had also filed a separate suit seeking partition, claiming to be co-owner of suit property – She was claiming right, title or interest in suit property – As such, Judgment based on Order XII Rule 6 of CPC was not called for. (Paras 18, 21, 27, 28 and 29)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 31 and 34 – Cancellation of document – Non-executant of a document is not required to seek its annulment in terms of Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 31 pertains to cancellation of instruments and operates in personam, as right to seek such cancellation vests exclusively in executant or a person claiming under him, who apprehends that existence of the document, though void or voidable, may cause him serious injury if left outstanding – Conversely, Section 34 deals with declaratory relief, which is in rem in nature, as declaration made by Court determines legal status or character of a person or validity of a right against all persons – A non-executant, one who is not a party to document, cannot seek its cancellation but may instead pray for declaration that such instrument is null, void, or not binding upon him. (Paras 24 and 26)
Result: Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Cont.CAS(C) 571/2025
The present petition has been filed under Section 11/12 and 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Rule 5(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] against the Respondent for wilful disobedience of the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by this Court in RFA(OS) 49/2024 captioned Shumita Sandhu vs. Tani Sandhu Bhargava.
2. Learned senior counsel representing the Petitioner submits that he has instructions not to press the present Contempt Petition, as the same has been purged.
3. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of.
RFA(OS) 49/2024 and RFA(OS) 4/2025
4. The present judgment shall dispose of two connected Appeals, i.e., RFA(OS) 49/2024 and RFA(OS) 4/2025, which are arising from two cross suits.
5. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.
6. The Appellant/Smt. Shumita Sandhu is the widow of Sh. Sanjay Singh Sandhu, who passed away on 03.07.2019. Late Sh. Sanjay Singh Sandhu was the brother of Respondent No.1/Smt. Tani Sandhu Bhargava, thereby making the Appellant sister-in-law of Respondent No. 1.
7. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for the possession of mandatory injunction for passing a decree with respect to the Ground Floor of Block No.172, Plot No.202, Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 110003 [hereinafter referred to as “suit property”], on the strength of a registered Gift Deed dated 29.01.2008 executed by her mother, Late Smt. Sheila Sandhu, in her favour [hereinafter referred to as “Gift Deed”].
8. The Appellant contested the suit on various grounds, one of the grounds being that the suit property is a Joint Hindu family property. It was also claimed by the Appellant that she is a coparcener in the suit property. It was further alleged by the Appellant that the alleged Gift Deed is forged and fabricated and not a result of the free mind of the executant, i.e., Late Smt. Sheila Sandhu, as she was suffering from Alzheimer’s.
9. Though the expression used in the written statement is Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), however, that is a concept known to the Income Tax law because it is the only taxable unit as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. In Hindu Law, it is either Joint Hindu Family or Joint Hindu Family Property.
10. The second suit was filed by the Appellant to claim the partition of the suit property.
11. Learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment dated 18.09.2024, decreed the suit in exercise of powers under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, while observing that the defense put forth by the Appellant is moonshine and the Gift Deed, relied upon by Respondent No. 1, has not been challenged.
12. The second suit filed by the Appellant was dismissed on the ground that the previous judgment passed in the suit filed by Respondent No.1 records that Respondent No.1 is entitled to the possession of the suit property.
13. Heard learned counsel representing the parties at length and, with their able assistance, perused the paperbook.
14. Learned counsel representing the Appellant, while referring to the written statement filed by her in the suit filed by Respondent No.1 and various other documents, including the medical record, relied upon in the written statement, submits that the suit filed by Respondent No.1 could not be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. It is further submitted that the opportunity to lead evidence was required to be given to the Appellant to prove her defense.
15. Per contra, learned senior counsel representing the Respondent No.1, while referring to the detailed impugned judgment dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, submits that the defense put forth by the Appellant was moonshine and had no substance. He further submits that the vague plea has been taken by the Appellant in order to prolong the litigation. It is further submitted that though the Appellant ha
(1) Judgment on admission – Provisions contained under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC are not mandatory in nature.(2) Cancellation of document – A non-executant, one who is not a party to document, cannot s....
The trial court improperly relied on defendant's documents and evidence in dismissing the plaint at the preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11, highlighting the necessity for evidence before decid....
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 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 ....
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.
(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 ....
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
