Does Admission Confer Property Title? The Legal Reality

For this reason I am of opinion that the order 6 D 5 does not confer absolute title on the respondent. ... order embodying the admission did not give absolute title to the claimant, Kiri Menika v. ... When there is a simple admission of a claim the ruling in Kiri Menika et al. v. Appuhamy et al, (supra) has no application and the claimant does not#HL_END....

2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3948

Though an entry in the revenue records will not confer title to the property, in cases where properties are claimed by inheritance from ancestors, registered document may not be available in all cases. Only the revenue documents in the name of ancestor and the long enjoyment would prove the title. ... Elaborating the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission, the learn....

2025 7 Supreme 204

As per the settled position of law, this document does not confer a valid title on the plaintiff as it is not a deed of conveyance as per Section 54 of the TP Act. ... The said instruments do not confer a valid title upon the plaintiff because as per Section 54 of TP Act, only through a deed of conveyance can a title can be transferred, and none of the....

2025 4 Supreme 163

It is pertinent to note that the Rule provides that Court "may" pass a judgment or order based on the admission. Thus, it is clear that the legislative intent is to confer a discretionary power of the Court and judgment based on admission cannot be clarified as a matter of right. ... Any admission in such statement is relevant not only for the purpose of finding out the real dispute between the parties bu....

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1702

Thus, it is clear that the legislative intent is to confer a discretionary power of the Court and judgment based on admission cannot be clarified as a matter of right. The legislative intent is further clarified by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 5. ... When a statement is made to a party and such statement is brought before the court showing admission of liability by an application filed under Order 12 Rule 6 and the other side has sufficient ....

Clearly these issues do not arise in this action. ... The fact that defendants have acquired title to the land after action does not affect the decision of the case; other principles may apply to partition actions. Both parties claimed title at first from a common owner. The subsequent Crown grant cannot be pleaded in this action. ... R. 44.] were cited on behalf of the appellant, but the documents of which the effec....

2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2571

The Trial Court rendered a finding to the effect that a mere mention of the sale made in favour of the plaintiff, by itself, would not constitute an admission and that it could not be taken to be substantive evidence to uphold the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. ... Once it is held that the recitals found in Ex.A4 and Ex.A.5 would not fall within the purview of 'admission'....

However at the trial unless the party is willing to have it recorded as an admission, it should not be so recorded. ... The defendants did not dispute the plaintiff 's title. However the defendants claimed tenancy. When this case was taken up for trial in 1.12.1999 the defendants admitted paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the plaint wherein the plaintiff's title is set out. ... And the facts proposed to be es....

2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1583

True it is that title cannot pass by way of admission. But at the same time we should not be obvious of the fact that this is not a straight jacket formula. ... In the circumstances, this admission has weak evidentiary value. In this suit the plaintiffs do not claim tenancy right either by express grant or by adverse possession. Title cannot pass by mere admis....

under a duty to establish the title, despite the said admission. ... The trial Court held with the defendant, holding that the plaintiff had not established his title. ... As a matter of law, the plaintiff need not have proved any­thing by reason of the admission. Thus the learned District Judge had erred in law when he held that the plaintiff had failed to prove her title....

2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 248

but the nature of the land can form subject matter of admission. 9. Section 58 of the Evidence Act postulates that things admitted need not be proved. It may be that admission does not create any title. In the aforesaid case, is was enunciated that, 8. Admission, it is well know, forms the best evidence.

2016 0 Supreme(MP) 998

It is urged that mere admission is insufficient to confer title, which does not exist. In support of aforesaid submission, reference has been made to decision of Supreme Court in the case of Nagubai Ammal and others v. B.Shama Rao and others, AIR 1956 SC 593. In this connection, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ambika Prasad v. Ram Ekbal Rai, AIR 1966 SC 605 and Kedar Nath Motani and others v. Prahlad Rai and others, AIR 1960 SC 213. It is argued....

2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 4210

In Avtar Singh and Other and Gurdial Singh and Other reported in (2006 (12) SCC 552), the Honble Supreme Court has held that "Admission, it is well know, forms the best evidence. It may be that admission does not create any title, but the nature of the land can form subject-matter of admission".

2001 2 Supreme 97

He submitted that if the Respondents were claiming to be owners of the land it was for them to prove their ownership. He submitted that as the Respondents were contending that the land was an old grant terms, it was for the Respondents to prove their case by producing the old grant. Mr. Andhyarujina submitted that an admission did not confer title.

1997 0 Supreme(Mad) 717

The appellants also cannot, therefore, plead ignorance about the same. Even though admission itself may not confer title, that principle cannot be made applicable to this case. It is a subsequent arrangement or division among the various purchasers, and that is pleaded in the plaint.