Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5861
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Shruti Mayank Shah – Appellant
Versus
Ulltra Lifespace Private Limited – Respondent
SUIT (L) NO.232 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ashish Kamat, Mr. Mohit Khanna, Ms. Devika Nigde
For the Respondents: Mr. Pramod Bhosle, Mr. Praful B. Valvi, Dr. Yusuf Iqbal Yusuf, Ms. Shaista Pathan, Mr. Zain Shroff, Mr. Shahbazkhan Sandi, Mr. Ranit Basu, Ms. Maitri Malade, Ms. Dua Shaikh, Ms. Harshada Nirmal
Judgment on admissions can be granted under Order XII Rule 6 when clear admissions regarding ownership are made, particularly in cases involving fraud and irregularities in subsequent agreements.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Judgment on admissions - Plaintiff sought decree based on admissions of fact by Defendants regarding ownership of property - Plaintiff purchased property in 2020 and maintained possession - Defendants acknowledged irregularities in subsequent fraudulent agreements - Court confirmed Plaintiff's ownership and declared subsequent agreements void. (Paras 18, 20, 40, 42)
(B) Fraud - Validity of agreements - Subsequent transactions claimed to be fraudulent as they were executed by non-existent entities and involved forged documents - Court found admissions of fraud made by Defendants. (Paras 15, 36)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff claimed ownership of a property sold to her by Defendants in 2020 and sought to cancel subsequent fraudulent agreements that purportedly transferred the property to other defendants without her knowledge. Plaintiff’s title was undisputed by the main contesting defendants.
Findings of Court:
Court found clear admissions of fact by the defendants acknowledging fraudulent nature of subsequent agreements and decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the court should grant judgment on admissions based on the claim of ownership and fraudulent actions by the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized the discretionary power to grant judgment under Order XII Rule 6 when clear admissions are made, and determined that based on the admissions, the plaintiff’s title should be restored.
Result: Suit decreed in favor of the Plaintiff.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff purchases property and claims admission of facts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff learns of fraudulent documents regarding the same property. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. defendants acknowledge inability to contest as documents remain unexamined. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. arguments presented by plaintiffs on behalf of their entitlement. (Para 9) |
| 5. defendants argue the transaction validity based on alleged payments. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. court identifies competing claims of parties. (Para 12) |
| 7. court assesses the weight of evidence of fraud in property transfer. (Para 14 , 15 , 22) |
| 8. outline of the legal standard for judgment on admissions. (Para 16) |
| 9. clarifies broad judicial discretion under order xii rule 6. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 10. discussion on the implications of admissions from defendant affidavits. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 29) |
| 11. defendants show willingness to rectify their actions. (Para 26) |
| 12. court aims to provide a resolution based on admissions. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 13. court evaluates clear admissions and intentions regarding cancellation. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 14. court directives based on clear admissions lead to judgment. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 15. final judgment granting orders in favor of the plaintiff. (Para 41 , 42) |
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Reserved on : 18 SEPTEMBER 2025.
Pronounced on : 23 SEPTEMBER 2025.
JUDGMENT :-
1) Plaintiff has sought a decree on admission under the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) contending that the contesting Defendants have given admissions of fact both in the pleadings as well as in the documents admitting the claim of Plaintiff.
2) Plaintiff’s case, as pleaded in the Plaint, is as under :-
By registered Agreement for Sale dated 14 December 2020, Plaintiff purchased Flat No.1304 admeasuring 205.20 sq.meters on 13th floor of the building known as ‘81 Aureate’ together with 4 car parking spaces situated at K.C. Road, near Rangsharada, Bandra Reclamation, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050 (suit premises). The Agreement for Sale shows payment of consideration of Rs.11.75 crores by Plaintiff, who claims to be in exclusive and undisturbed possession of the suit premises since December 2020. She has been paying maintenance bills raised by the first Defendant-Developer. The building ‘81 Aureate’ is constructed by M/s. Pyramid Developers (Defendant No.2) as promoter and M/s. Ulltra Lifespace Private Ltd. (Ulltra) as co-promoter, who have caused sale of the suit premises to the Plaintiff vide Agreement of Sale dated
14 December 2020.
3) In September 2024, Plaintiff learnt about an Allotment Letter in respect of suit premises through WhatsApp group, where some of the property agents had circulated copy of Allotment Letter dated 9 May 2024 issued in respect of the suit premises. Plaintiff conducted search and came to know about Allotment Letter dated 9 May 2024 and Agreement dated 31 July 2024. The Allotment Letter dated 9 May 2024 is shown to have been issued by one ‘81 Aureate’ (non-existent entity) in favour of Defendant No.4. Allotment Letter is not in the name of Defendant No.1, who has denied having issued any such Allotment Letter. The website as well as phone number reflected in the Allotment Letter also do not connect the same to Defendant No.1 and is found to be fictitious and sham. The sale consideration mentioned in the Allotment Letter is shown as only Rs.3.5 crores. So far as Agreement dated 31 July 2024 is concerned, it is shown to have been executed and registered by an entity ‘Ultra Life Space Private Ltd.’ in favour of Defendant No.5. According to Plaintiff there is no entity by name ‘Ultra Life Space Private Ltd.’. According to the Plaintiff, the said Agreement does not make correct statement of fact relating to such construction of the building and location of the suit premises as the building is shown to be under construction, when the construction was complete in 2020 and the suit premises are shown to be located on 25th floor, which are actually l
