A party cannot change its position in legal proceedings without jeopardizing the integrity of the process; admissions made in court must be upheld.

ORDER

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

I.A. 42119/2024 (under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, 1908)

1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking judgment on admissions of defendant no. 1 made in the written statement.

2. Mr. Ankit Jain, learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff stated that the plaintiff by way of the present suit has, inter-alia, sought partition of the suit properties being (i) property bearing no. 151, Veer Nagar, Jain Colony, New Delhi-110007 (‘Veer Nagar property’) and (ii) property bearing no. 2683-84, half at 13, Sadar Thana Road, New Delhi-110006 (Sadar Thana property’) by metes and bounds along with decree of possession qua the said properties.

3. He stated that it is admitted on record that the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 are the only persons entitled to the Veer Nagar property, which has devolved upon them after the death of their father, late Shri Ajit Prasad Jain. In this regard, he relied upon the relinquishment deed dated 21.02.2006 executed by Smt. Trishla Jain (wife of late Shri Ajit Prasad Jain) and Smt. Ujjwal Jain (daughter of late Shri Ajit Prasad Jain) in favour of the plaintiff, defendant nos. 1 and 2.

4. He stated that the order dated 31.07.2024 passed in these proceedings records that defendant nos. 2 and 3 have admitted the case of the applicant/plaintiff herein and defendant no. 1 is effectively the only contesting party to the present suit.

5. He stated that the Veer Nagar property was owned by late Shri Ajit Prasad Jain and late Shri Surender Kumar Jain, both having a 50% share each. He stated that the said property stood partitioned between the said two brothers and there was a separate 2½ storey structure in the rear portion which fell to the share of late Shri Surender Kumar Jain. He stated that the front portion fell to the share of late Shri Ajit Prasad Jain. And, the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 as well as defendant no. 2 are entitled to separate possession of the existing structure in the said front portion as per the written statement of defendant no. 1.

6. He stated that defendant no. 1 in the written statement has pleaded that there was an oral partition between the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and, defendant no. 2 with respect to the Veer Nagar property and the said property was partitioned in the following manner: (i) ground floor fell to the share of the applicant/plaintiff; (ii) second floor and one room on the third floor fell to the share of defendant no. 1; and (iii) the first floor along with two rooms on the third floor fell to the share of defendant no. 2.

7. He stated that defendant no. 1 in the written statement has further pleaded that since Veer Nagar property has already been partitioned by metes and bounds, and the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and, defendant no. 2 have taken exclusive possession of their respective portions; ttherefore, nothing survives for adjudication qua the said property. He stated that defendant no. 1 has also relied upon the fact that the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 are filing their independent and respective return of the house tax and depositing tax for their respective portions in the said property.

8. He stated that after duly considering defendant no. 1’s written statement of defendant no. 1, the plaintiff, without prejudice to the case presented in the plaint, expresses his willingness to accept the terms of the family settlement propounded by defendant no. 1 qua the Veer Nagar property.

9. He stated that, therefore, a decree of preliminary and final partition along with the decree of possession and permanent injunction qua Veer Nagar property be passed in favour of the plaintiff based on the assertions made in the written statement of defendant no. 1 with respect to plaintiff’s share in the Veer Nagar property i.e., the ground floor of the said property.

10. He stated that the plaintiff abides by the declar