THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3758 OF 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri M.J. Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. K. Vani, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 21.06.2024 in I.A.No.90 of 2023 in O.S.No.308 of 2022 on the file of the Court of XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, trial Court), whereby the application filed by the petitioners herein under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed. The trial Court principally assigned the following reasons in the impugned order for dismissing the said application.

“22. Perused the certified copy of the complaint in DV Case No.27 of 2016 which is exhibited as Ex.B7. A careful reading of the same would show that the plaintiff herein as applicant filed DV Case against her husband, her mother, sister and brother. After a reading of the contents of Ex.B7 in para No.2 to 5, 10 and 14 one could say that the respondent/plaintiff herein has disputed the Will deed said to have been executed by her father. The respondent expressed her suspicion over the genuineness of the Will and its execution by her father and the signatures of her father thereon. As per the averments made in Ex.B7 the respondent is alleging that the will deed shown to her by her mother and sister was without the signatures of attestors and later the signatures of the attestors were obtained thereon. Thus after going through the averments of the Ex.B7 it cannot be said that the respondent/plaintiff made admission about the execution of the will deed by her father in favour of her mother exclusively bequeathing the suit schedule property.

23. The object of Order XII Rule 6 is to empower the Court to pass a decree when there is clear, unequivocal, umambiguous and unconditional admission of the defendant in respect of the plaintiff’s claim.

24. The power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and Court may, require the plaintiff to prove the facts in spite of clear admissions, before the Court can act upon the admission, it has to be shown that the admission is unequivocal, clear and positive.

25. At this stage it is appropriate to refer to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum [reported in AIR 1958 SC 886 : 1959 SCR 1111 three judges bench]. In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Order 12 Rule 6 has to be read along with the proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8. That is to say, notwithstanding the admission made by the defendant in his pleading, the court may still require the plaintiff to prove the facts pleaded by him in the plaint.

26. Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC provides that even the admitted fact may not be treated to be admitted, still in its discretion the Court may require those facts to be proved otherwise than by such admission. This is an exception to the general rule.

27. It is a matter of the court’s satisfaction and, therefore, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need be proved on account of deemed admission, the court can conveniently pass a judgment against the defendant.

28. But in the case on hand, the plaintiff disputed the will deed said to have been executed by her father in favour of her mother/D1 bequeathing the suit schedule property exclusively to the defendant No.1. Further, the plaintiff is claiming her share in the suit schedule property basing on a Will said to have been executed by her father in favour of his wife and children. Whether this will claimed by the plaintiff is a genuine or created one and the genuineness of the will claimed by the petitioner/D1 will be proved only in trial. Whether the plaintiff by suppressing material facts came to the court with unclean hands also will come out only after trial. Though both parties exhibited documents, the documents, other than Ex.B3 to B7 exhibited by the parties are not relevant