A decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be passed when documents relied upon by the defendant, even if not admissions, do not raise a triable issue or create any legal right.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96, Order XII Rule 6 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 - Judgment on admission - A decree under Order XII Rule 6 can be passed if the defendant’s own documents, even if not expressly admitting the plaintiff’s claim, do not create any right, title or interest in the defendant and therefore raise no triable issue - In a suit for possession, a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is prima facie proof of ownership unless challenged - Documents such as a Rajinama, Declaration or unregistered Family Settlement that purport to create rights in immovable property but are either prior to the plaintiff’s title or require compulsory registration are of no legal effect and cannot constitute a defence - A vague reference to documents in the written statement without substantiation does not create a triable issue. (Paras 26-40)

(B) The principle that Order XII Rule 6 is meant for speedy disposal only upon clear, unambiguous and unconditional admissions does not preclude the court from decreeing the suit when the defendant’s case, even if fully proved, would not entitle him to any relief - The court can examine the documents relied upon by the defendant and conclude that they do not set up a valid defence. (Paras 33-40)

Facts of the case:
The respondent/plaintiff, claiming to be the owner of a property by a registered sale deed dated 30.09.2005, filed a suit for possession, mesne profits and injunction against his brother, the appellant/defendant, who was in possession of the first floor. The defendant filed a written statement asserting ownership based on a family settlement dated 15.12.2011, a Rajinama dated 21.04.2005 and a Declaration dated 26.04.2005. The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff’s signatures had been obtained on blank papers. The trial court decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that the documents relied upon by the defendant did not create any right in his favour. The defendant appealed.

Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the decree, observing that the plaintiff’s registered sale deed was unchallenged. The Rajinama and Declaration were executed before the sale deed and at a time when neither party owned the property. The Family Settlement, even if true, was an unregistered document that could not transfer immovable property without registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant had not taken any steps for specific performance within the limitation period. The documents raised no triable issue and the suit was rightly decreed.

Issues: (1) Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of the documents filed by the defendant? (2) Whether the documents relied upon by the defendant created any right, title or interest in his favour?

Ratio Decidendi: Even if the documents relied upon by the defendant are taken at face value, they do not confer any legal right or ownership in the suit property. The plaintiff’s registered sale deed remains the only valid title document. Consequently, there was no triable issue and the decree under Order XII Rule 6 was proper. Result : Appeal dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) has been filed against the Order dated 08.01.2025 whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff for Possession has been decreed by the Learned District Judge, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

2. The Respondent/Plaintiff, Arun Kumar had filed a Civil Suit No. CS DJ No. 517821/2016 for Possession, Mesne Profits and Permanent Injunction in respect of the first floor of property bearing No. A-45, Mangal Bazar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Suit property).

3. The case of the Plaintiff/Respondent was that he was the owner of the entire builder property bearing No. H-45, Mangal Bazar Road, Uttam Nagar, vide a registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.2005. He had spent more than Rs.4,00,00/- on re-construction and renovation of the property, which now consists of five shops and one residential unit on the ground floor, which is in possession of the Defendant. He kept one shop for his own use, in future. However, keeping in mind the old age of the father, he accommodated his father and also his younger brother Neeraj Jaggi/Appellant and his family.

4. In the year 2006, wife of the Plaintiff expired after long ailment and treatment which mentally and emotionally shattered the Plaintiff and he got busy in upbringing of his minor children.

5. In the meanwhile, the relationship between the Plaintiff and his father became strained, and his father instituted a Civil Suit No. 344/2011 for Declaration and Permanent Injunction against the Plaintiff. Ultimately, the stress of the strained relationship with the father resulted in a major paralytic attack, and the left side of his body was paralyzed, in September 2011, making him disabled that he had difficulty in walking, writing, and doing his daily chores. The situation worsened with time. His father died on 16.12.2011, which completely broke the Plaintiff emotionally and mentally, who was already bed-ridden.

6. After the demise of his father, the Defendant/Appellant along with their elder sister Manju Khattar and her husband Sh. Satish Khattar, came to the Plaintiff and took his signatures on certain blank papers, for some legal requirements arising out of death of the father Nand Lal Jaggi. Because of the trust, he signed some documents and blank stamp papers.

7. The Plaintiff further asserted that in July 2013, he was asked by the Landlord to vacate the tenanted premises where he had been residing for the last few months, at the rent of Rs.9,500/- per month. His son, Bhrat approached the Appellant/Defendant to vacate the Suit premises. However, the Appellant as well as the sister Manju and her husband, started claiming themselves to be the owners of the residential unit, on the ground floor and one shop. The request of the Plaintiff for peaceful vacant possession of the property in question, did not get any result.

8. Thereafter, the Appellant and his sister Manju Khattar filed a Civil Suit bearing CS No. 292/2013 for Mandatory Injunction and made a prayer that Plaintiff be restrained from getting the property vacated, but the Suit was dismissed vide Judgment dated 25.11.2014.

9. The Defendant/Appellant, Neeraj Kumar Jaggi was the real brother who has continued to be in illegal possession of the residential complex, on the first floor. All efforts of the Plaintiff to get the possession have proved futile. Hence, the Respondent/Plaintiff Arun Kumar filed the Civil Suit for Possession, Mesne Profits and Permanent Injunction in respect of the Suit property).

10. The Defendant/Appellant in his Written Statement took the preliminary objection that the Suit did not disclose any cause of action and is liable to be rejected. It was claimed that there was a family settlement

dated 15.12.2011 between the parties, after the demise of their father. The Plaintiff had to execute the necessary documents in respect of the property in question in favour of the Defendant, b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINEERAJ KUMAR JAGGI – AppellantVersusARUN KUMAR – RespondentRFA-173/2025

A decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be passed when documents relied upon by the defendant, even if not admissions, do not raise a triable issue or create any legal right.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEERAJ KUMAR JAGGI – Appellant
Versus
ARUN KUMAR – Respondent
RFA-173/2025