112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 27.02.2025 Surya Kant & ors. ...... Petitioners versus Balwant Singh (deceased) through his LRs ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN ***

Present :- Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Parth Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1 Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 02.02.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram (Haryana) whereby prayer made by the plaintiffs seeking decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 CPC relying upon the admission made by the defendant stands declined. For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the petitioners as plaintiffs and the respondent as defendant.

2 Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that plaintiff No.1 is owner to the extent of 1/3^rd share, plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are owners to the extent of 1/3^rd share and plaintiffs No.4 to 6 are owner to the extent of 1/3^rd share. After filing of the suit, the parties arrived at compromise dated 07.05.2012. On the same day respondent-defendant filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs and also suffered statements on oath before the Court admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. Subsequent thereto, an application was filed seeking permission to withdraw admission and to permit him to contest the suit on merits. The same stands dismissed by the Trial Court holding that admission needs to be tested as a piece of evidence and the proof thereof cannot be dispensed with. The import of such admission yet to be tested, the same cannot be allowed to be withdrawn.

3 Thereafter, plaintiffs made prayer seeking decree on the basis of admission as contemplated under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The same stands declined by the Trial Court observing that the defendant claimed that there was no family constituted by the parties to the lis and thus there can’t be any question of family settlement. On the same day, the Trial Court framed following issues vide separate order :-

“1. Whether family settlement dated 10.11.2011 has been entered between the plaintiffs and defendant as alleged? OPP

2. If issue no. 1 is decided in favour of plaintiffs, whether plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP.

3. Relief.”

4 Learned counsel for the plaintiffs while assailing the impugned order submits that the Trial Court erred in ignoring the mandate of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Defendant not only signed compromise with the plaintiffs but also filed admitted written statement and made statement on oath before the Trial Court admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. Thus there was no option with the Court but to decree the suit filed by the plaintiffs. He further submits that the Court also erred in holding that the parties do not constitute family being distant relatives. He relies upon para 27 of the Kale and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & ors. 1976(3) SCC 119 wherein Supreme Court observed as under :-

“27. As regards the first point it appears to us to be wholly untenable in law. From the principles enunciated by us and the case law discussed above, it is absolutely clear that the word 'family' cannot he construed in a narrow sense so as to confine the parties to the family arrangement only to persons who have a legal title to the property. Even so it cannot be disputed that the appellant Kale being the grand son of Lachman and therefore a reversioner at the time when the talks for compromise` took place was undoubtedly a prospective heir and also a member of the family. Since respondents 4 & 5 relinquished their claims in favour of the appellant Kale in respect of Khatas 5 & 90 the appellant, according to the authorities mentioned above, would be deemed to have antecedent title which was acknowledged by respondents 4 & 5. Apart from this there is one more important consideration ,