Sachidanadaswamy vs Gowdara Annaiyappa and Others

Budihal R.B., J.—1. This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 06.01.2016 passed on I.A. No. 31 in O.S. No. 1308/1987 by the 14th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.

The writ petitioner/plaintiff No. 2 herein filed the interim application/I.A. No. 31 under Order 12 Rule 6 r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C., requesting the trial Court to pass the decree on the basis of the admission made by the defendant. The said application was opposed by the other side by filing objections statement. Considering the merits of the application, ultimately, the trial Court rejected the application passing the order which is challenged in this writ petition.

Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for writ petitioner/plaintiff No. 2 and also the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner during the course of the arguments made the submission that in the sale deed under which plaintiff purchased the property the survey number is mentioned as No. 6/2 instead of mentioning as survey No. 9. Counsel also made the submission that subsequently, the suit came to be decreed and after passing the decree when the matter was challenged before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Counsel further made the submission that in the meanwhile, there was confirmation deed by defendant Nos. 2 to 6 and Counsel draws the attention of this Court to the confirmation deed at Annexure ''G'' to the petition and made the submission that in the confirmation deed, the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 have agreed that the correct survey number is No. 9 and not survey No. 9/2. Accordingly, the deed was registered rectifying the survey number. Counsel further made the submission that before that defendant No. 1 expired and the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 were brought on record. Counsel submitted that when the application was filed before the trial Court on the basis of the admission made in the confirmation deed and also the original sale deed executed by defendant No. 1, the property number has been corrected. Therefore, he sought the decree on the basis of the said admission under the relevant provision by filing application/I.A. No. 31. Counsel submitted that the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 1 took the contention that the signature of their father was obtained on the blank document and the written statement was prepared. He also made the submission that even the other defendants also in their written statement contended that they have denied the execution of the confirmation deed. Hence, the learned Counsel made the submission that the legal representative''s cannot make the defense which is inconsistent with the defense taken by their father in the earlier suit. Hence, it is his contention that trial Court has not taken into consideration while passing the order on the said application. Learned Counsel submitted that on the basis of the admission, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit but the application was rejected and hence, the order passed by the trial Court is illegal and not sustainable in law.

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein made the submission that there is no such confirmation deed as such. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 along with other defendants have challenged the validity and correctness of the confirmation deed and they have filed the written statement denying the case of the plaintiff that there was a said confirmation deed. Hence, he submits that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the contentions of the other defendants and so also the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 1 and held that it cannot be amounting to admission and on the basis of the same, the suit cannot be decreed as the defendants have contended in the written statement and challenged the very confirmation deed. Hence, it is his contention that there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is to be dismissed.

I have perused the grounds urged in the writ petition and impugned order passed by the trial Court on the application I.A. No. 31. It is no doubt true that, as contended by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner/plaintiff that in the suit, at the earlier point of time, defendant No. 1 filed the written statement admitting the contention of the plaintiff and he has no objection for passing the decree. But further because of the demise of defendant No. 1, legal representatives have come on record so also the other defendants in the suit also filed the written statement. They have contested the suit with regard to the document/confirmation deed and they have seriously challenged the said document. In view of that when the trial Court has taken up the application for consideration, the trial Court was under the duty to refer to all the materials placed on record and not only the confirmation deed. It is no doubt true that the confirmation deed is said to have been executed by defendant Nos. 2 to 6. But this aspect has not been admitted by the parties in the pleadings which they have filed before the trial Court. They have challenged the confirmation deed and its validity and denied the execution of the said confirmation deed. In view of such contention, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is no admission as such, by defendant Nos. 2 to 6 and the trial Court proceeded to reject the application. Looking to these materials placed on record and in view of the written statement by way of pleadings of other defendant Nos. 2 to 6 in the matter and the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 1, the trial Court is justified in making such order holding that it does not amount to admission under Order 12 Rule 6 and the matter requires consideration in full fledged trial after recording the evidence in the matter.

Under such circumstances, no fault can be found in the order of the trial Court and no justifiable and valid grounds are made out to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition and same is rejected.

However, the observations made by this Court in the body of this order are only for the purpose of the disposal of the writ petition and the trial Court should not be influenced by the observations made above while disposing of the suit.