SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1197

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. Madhavi Devi, J.
B. Lalitha Devi and others – Petitioner
Versus
Lakshman and others – Respondents
CRP No.1087 of 2024
Decided On : 17-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: R. Anurag
For the Respondent: Narendar Jalli

For judgment under Order XII Rule 6, admissions must be clear and unconditional; conditional admissions do not suffice.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, Order XII Rule 6 - Revision against the order dismissing the application for judgment on admissions - The court held that the admissions made by the defendants were conditional and did not amount to an unambiguous admission of possession - The petitioners must prove their possession to succeed in the suit. (Paras 6, 24)

(B) Admission of facts - For a judgment to be passed under Order XII Rule 6, admissions in pleadings must be clear and unconditional - Conditional admissions cannot form the basis for a decree. (Paras 14, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming possession of a property initially possessed by Mr. B.Krishna Murthi, who had received it via a Gift Deed from the original owner. Following his death, the defendants attempted to reclaim the property, leading to the present revision petition against a trial court order dismissing the plaintiffs' application for a judgment based on alleged admissions by the defendants. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The trial court reasoned that the defendants' admissions regarding the construction on the property were conditional and insufficient to warrant a decree under Order XII Rule 6, and the plaintiffs were obligated to prove their possession. (Paras 6, 25)

Issues: The court addressed whether the defendants had made an unconditional admission regarding the plaintiffs' possession of the suit property, and the validity of the plaintiffs' claim to a judgment based on those admissions. (Paras 6, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 to be granted, the admissions must be unambiguous. The defendants' claims of the relative illegality of the plaintiffs' possession prevented such unconditional admission from being established. (Paras 14, 24)

Result: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. (Para 26)

Table of Content
1. factual background of property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. defendant's counterclaim and argument regarding title. (Para 5 , 6 , 12)
3. plaintiff's argument based on possession and reliance on past judgments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court's interpretation of order 12 rule 6 cpc. (Para 14 , 24)
5. court's dismissal of the civil revision petition. (Para 25 , 26)

ORDER :

T. Madhavi Devi, J.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 20.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.21 of 2023 in O.S.No.138 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy, in respect of the petition filed under Order XII Rule 6 of C.P.C. by the petitioners/plaintiffs.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioners herein are the plaintiffs who filed suit i.e., O.S.No.138 of 2016 for perpetual injunction. The suit schedule property is a house bearing No.1-9-165/9, situated as Karas Guthy Road, consisting of seven mulgies, one store room, one pump house, one stair case and two toilets, constructed on land admeasuring 242 square yards on Plot Nos.26/1 and 26/2 in Survey No.23/2, Narayankhed Village, Medak District. According to the plaintiffs, originally, one P.Venkatesh Rao was the absolute owner and possessor of various extents of lands admeasuring about Ac.5-00gts., situated in Survey No.23/2. In order to carry on agricultural activity in the said land, Mr.P.Venkatesh Rao approached one Mr.B.Krishna Murthi (husband of Plaintiff No.1 and father of Plaintiffs No.2 to 5) and requested him to solve the drainage issue in the said lands and Mr.B.Krishna Murthi devoted substantial part of his time and came to a conclusion that it was not possible to carry on agricultural activity in the said land and has accordingly advised Mr.P.Venkatesh Rao to go in for development of the same and not to proceed further with agricultural activity. According to the plaintiffs, Mr.B.Krishna Murthi did all the said work for P.Venkatesh Rao free of cost without charging any amount. Thereafter, Mr.P.Venkatesh Rao has developed the said property and in order to show the gratitude to Mr.B.Krishna Murthi, had executed a Gift Deed in favour of the Mr.B.Krishna Murthi and had transferred Plot Nos.26/1 and 26/2, total admeasure 242 square yards in his favour. Consequent thereto, Mr.B.Krishna Murthi had made an application to the Gram Panchayat, Narayankhed, seeking permission to construct building with RCC roof vide application dated 11.10.1988 and the Village Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Narayankhed vide File No.263/GPN/1988-89, dated 23.10.1988 had accorded permission for construction of building in the said property. Thereafter, Mr.B.Krishna Murthi paid the requisite fees to the Gram Panchayat and the plan was sanctioned for construction of the building and Mr.B.Krishna Murthi has made construction of a structure comprising of mulgies and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same without there being any interference of whatsoever from any person/persons. It is submitted that pursuant to the construction, the Gram Panchayat authorities assigned door number to building as 1-9-165/9 and Mr.B.Krishna Murthi has been paying property tax regularly to the concerned Gram Panchayat and electricity department had also allotted service connection bearing No.4424602108 and Mr.B.Krishna Murthi has been paying the electricity bills regularly and an ownership certificate dated 10.05.2016 was also issued in favour of the Mr.B.Krishna Murthi and he has been paying property tax for the said property thereafter.

3. It is submitted that the mulgies were let out on rent and the rents were being collected by Mr.B.Krishna Murthi. While that being so, it is submitted that on 07.05.2016, the defendant No.1 along with his sons and henchmen, forcibly tried to enter into one of the mulgies and take possession of the same but these efforts were successfully thwarted by Mr.B.Krishna Murthi with the help of w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top