Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 21471
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
T.Madhavi Devi, J
B.Krishna Murthi – Appellant
Versus
P.Venkatesh Rao – Respondent
C.R.P.NO. 1087 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not Listed
For the Respondents: Not Listed
Power under Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. for judgment on admission is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is applicable only when admissions are clear, categorical, and unconditional, rendering the success of the party making the admission impossible.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Judgment on admissions - Discretionary nature of power - Admissions must be unambiguous and unconditional to warrant a decree on admission - Court held that disputed title and contested possession prevent the exercise of summary judgment powers. (Paras 14, 15, 18, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought a decree in their favour based on alleged admissions of possession made by the respondents in their written statement and counter-claim regarding a permanent injunction suit. The trial court declined the petition, noting that the respondents contested the legality and title of the possession, making the admission neither unconditional nor unambiguous. The petitioners appealed this findings to the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's order, ruling that the power under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right when the admissions are qualified or contested.
Issues: Whether the alleged admissions in the pleadings satisfy the criteria for a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the C.P.C. concerning possession and title.
Ratio Decidendi: An order under Order XII Rule 6 cannot be granted unless the admissions are clear, categorical, and unconditional. Where an admission is qualified or paired with a denial of title or legality of possession, the court must relegate the parties to a full trial.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background leading to the suit and the impugned order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding admissions and entitlement under order xii rule 6. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. judicial interpretation of the discretionary nature of order xii rule 6. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. final outcome confirming that conditional admissions do not warrant a decree. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 20.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.21 of 2023 in O.S.No.138 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy, in respect of the petition filed under Order XII Rule 6 of C.P.C. by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioners herein are the plaintiffs who filed suit i.e., O.S.No.138 of 2016 for perpetual injunction. The suit schedule property is a house bearing No.1-9-165/9, situated as Karas Guthy Road, consisting of seven mulgies, one store room, one pump house, one stair case and two toilets, constructed on land admeasuring 242 square yards on Plot Nos.26/1 and 26/2 in Survey No.23/2, Narayankhed Village, Medak District. According to the plaintiffs, originally, one P.Venkatesh Rao was the absolute owner and possessor of various extents of lands admeasuring about Ac.5-00gts., situated in Survey No.23/2. In order to carry on agricultural activity in the said land, Mr.P.Venkatesh Rao approached one Mr.B.Krishna Murthi (husband of Plaintiff No.1 and father of Plaintiffs No.2 to 5) and requested him to solve the drainage issue in the said lands and Mr.B.Krishna Murthi devoted substantial part of his time and came to a conclusion that it was not possible to carry on agricultural activity in the said land and has accordingly advised Mr.P.Venkatesh Rao to go in for development of the same and not to proceed further with agricultural activity. According to the plaintiffs, Mr.B.Krishna Murthi did all the said work for P.Venkatesh Rao free of cost without charging any amount. Thereafter, Mr.P.Venkatesh Rao has developed the said property and in order to show the gratitude to Mr.B.Krishna Murthi, had executed a Gift Deed in favour of the Mr.B.Krishna Murthi and had transferred Plot Nos.26/1 and 26/2, total admeasure 242 square yards in his favour. Consequent thereto, Mr.B.Krishna Murthi had made an application to the Gram Panchayat, Narayankhed, seeking permission to construct building with RCC roof vide application dated 11.10.1988 and the Village Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Narayankhed vide File No.263/GPN/1988-89, dated 23.10.1988 had accorded permission for construction of building in the said property. Thereafter, Mr.B.Krishna Murthi paid the requisite fees to the Gram Panchayat and the plan was sanctioned for construction of the building and Mr.B.Krishna Murthi has made construction of a structure comprising of mulgies and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same without there being any interference of whatsoever from any person/persons. It is submitted that pursuant to the construction, the Gram Panchayat authorities assigned door number to building as 1-9-165/9 and Mr.B.Krishna Murthi has been paying property tax regularly to the concerned Gram Panchayat and electricity department had also allotted service connection bearing No.4424602108 and Mr.B.Krishna Murthi has been paying the electricity bills regularly and an ownership certificate dated 10.05.2016 was also issued in favour of the Mr.B.Krishna Murthi and he has been paying property tax for the said property thereafter.
3. It is submitted that the mulgies were let out on rent and the rents were being collected by Mr.B.Krishna Murthi. While that being so, it is submitted that on 07.05.2016, the defendant No.1 along with his sons and henchmen, forcibly tried to enter into one of the mulgies and take possession of the same but these efforts w
