Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 10803

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ
M/S SANGEETA LEASINGS & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
HEM MANOHAR & ORS. – Respondent
RFA(OS)-55/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sandeep P. Agarwal, Varun Shankar, Ishita Dhaiya
For the Respondents: Arjun Singh Bawa, Sahil Gupta, Apoorva Pradhan

Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, a decree cannot be passed when pleadings raise serious disputes of fact and law requiring trial; summary judgment is only for clear and unequivocal admissions.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Summary judgment - Power to decree on admissions - When pleadings disclose serious disputes of fact and law, including title to property, existence of oral agreement to sell, and plea of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is not permissible to pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6 without affording parties an opportunity to lead evidence - Findings on disputed questions of fact cannot be recorded at that stage. (Paras 18-20, 22-24)

(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53A - Part performance - A plea based on an alleged oral agreement to sell and part performance raises mixed questions of law and fact and cannot be summarily rejected under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. (Paras 19, 22)

(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 144 - Restitution - When a decree for possession is set aside in appeal, the court may direct restoration of possession to the party dispossessed, in exercise of enabling power under Section 144. (Paras 27, 27.1)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking eviction, rendition of accounts, mesne profits, and injunction in respect of a suit property. Defendant No.1 was the sister of plaintiff No.1. The defendants claimed that late Shri Manohar (husband of plaintiff No.1) had executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in 1979 in favour of Shri Rajendra Gupta (husband of defendant No.1) and subsequently entered into an oral agreement to sell the property in 1984 for a consideration, with part payment made. They also claimed protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act based on continuous possession and part performance. The plaintiffs denied any sale or transfer. The learned Single Judge decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, holding the defendants to be unauthorised occupants from the date of demise of late Shri Manohar and directing delivery of possession, rendition of accounts, and mesne profits. The defendants appealed.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the pleadings disclosed serious disputes regarding title, the legal effect of the GPA, the existence and enforceability of the oral agreement to sell, and the applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. These disputes could not be adjudicated without trial. The Single Judge erred in recording findings of fact and granting final relief at the stage of Order XII Rule 6. The impugned judgment was set aside and the suit was restored for trial.

Issues: i) Whether the Single Judge was justified in decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC despite the defendants having seriously contested the plaintiffs' claim in their pleadings. ii) Whether, in a highly contested matter, it is permissible to record findings of fact and grant relief without affording the parties an opportunity to lead evidence at the stage of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC can only be invoked when there is a clear, categorical, and unequivocal admission. Where the pleadings raise serious disputed questions of fact and law, including issues of title, oral agreements, and part performance, a decree cannot be passed summarily without trial. The court must not adjudicate on contested facts at that stage. (Paras 18-20, 22, 24) Result : Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment dated 28.06.2024 set aside. Application under Order XII Rule 6 dismissed. Suit CS(OS) 600/2019 restored to the file of learned Single Judge for trial. Directions for restoration of possession passed under Section 144 CPC. All issues left open.

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Appeal, filed by the Appellants [Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit], assails the correctness of the judgment dated 28.06.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟] in CS(OS) 600/2019 whereby the learned Single Judge decreed the suit while allowing the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟]. It was held that the Defendants were unauthorised occupants of the property bearing No. E-12/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „suit property‟] since the demise of late Shri Manohar on 06.04.2017, and directed delivery of possession to the Plaintiffs. The learned Single Judge further directed the Defendants to render accounts and pay mesne profits from the date of demise of late Shri Manohar till the date of recovery of possession.

2. The following substantial questions arise for consideration in the present Appeal:

i. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendants had seriously contested the Plaintiff‟s claim in their pleadings.

ii. Whether, in a highly contested matter, it is permissible to record findings of fact and grant relief without affording the parties an opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate their respective contentions at the stage of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it is necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

4. The Plaintiffs, Smt. Hem Manohar and her daughter, Smt. Vivita Tayal, instituted CS(OS) 600/2019 seeking eviction of the Defendants, rendition of accounts, payment of mesne profits, damages for loss of rent, and injunction in respect of the suit property against the Defendants. Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1, Smt. Rachna Gupta, are real sisters. Defendant No.1 is married to Shri Rajendra Gupta, whereas Smt. Hem Manohar was married to late Shri Manohar. The Defendant Nos.2 and 3, the present Appellants, are members of the family business concern M/s. Sangeeta Leasings, which was in possession and management of the suit property pursuant to various agreements executed by the parties over several decades.

5. The suit property was initially allotted on a leasehold basis in 1969 jointly in the names of Plaintiff No.1 and her husband, late Shri Manohar. The Defendants assert that, upon the Plaintiffs‟ relocation to Australia, late Shri Manohar executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney [hereinafter referred to as „GPA‟] dated 17.01.1979 in favour of Shri Rajendra Gupta, authorising him to manage, administer, maintain, and deal with the suit property, including the collection of rents and handling of tenants. According to the Defendants, the said GPA remained operative and was never revoked until the demise of Shri Manohar on 06.04.2017.

6. In the written statement filed by Defendant No.1, the following chronology and assertions were highlighted:

“9. That early in the year 1984, Mr. Shri Manohar came to India as his daughter, Vivita Tayal, i.e., Plaintiff No.2 herein, was due to get married in India on 15.01.1984. On 08.01.1984, Mr. Shri Manohar and Mr. Rajendra Gupta along with Ms. Rachna Gupta, i.e., Defendant No.1 herein, had a joint meeting at the latter's residence at R-235, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi 110 048. The marriage of Plaintiff No.2 was arranged and organized jointly by both the families with full co-operation and support by all family members. During his visit to Mr. Rajendra Gupta on 08.01.1984, Mr. Shri Manohar expressed his desire to conclude his affairs in India as he had acquired or was on the verge of acquiring citizenship in Australia. In pursuance to the earlier arrangement between the parties, Mr. Shri Manohar offered to transfer, sell and convey all rights and interests in the su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 10803

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIAnil Kshetarpal, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJM/S SANGEETA LEASINGS & ANR. – AppellantVersusHEM MANOHAR & ORS. – RespondentRFA(OS)-55/2024

Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, a decree cannot be passed when pleadings raise serious disputes of fact and law requiring trial; summary judgment is only for clear and unequivocal admissions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ
M/S SANGEETA LEASINGS & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
HEM MANOHAR & ORS. – Respondent
RFA(OS)-55/2024