AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present application has been preferred by the defendant under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC” in short) seeking a preliminary decree by this Court qua declaring the defendant to be the sole and absolute owner of the property i.e., Plot No. G-474, RIICO, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan (hereinafter “subject property”) on the basis of the admissions made by the plaintiffs.
The parties to the present suit are siblings, being children of Late Shri Ram Chand Gupta and Late Smt. Samar Lata Gupta. Plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for partition and possession in respect of the properties of their late parents.
The suit is presently at the stage of evidence.
The defendant has now filed this application seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim only to the extent of the subject property whereby, as per the defendant, plaintiffs during their evidence have admitted the subject property as „not a family-owned property‟ and rather a property purchased by the defendant.
Learned Counsel for the defendant submits that the defendant is the exclusive owner of this property through a registered lease deed dated 26.05.1988 and has been conducting his business from the subject property for more than three decades. He further submitted that though in the plaint, particularly, paragraph 8 of the plaint does not depict the full description of the said subject property being worded as „Property being industrial plot at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan‟.
Learned Counsel for the defendant states that the title and ownership status of the subject property can be decided by this Court unambiguously under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, merely on the basis of the admissions made by plaintiffs during their evidence.
Learned Counsel for plaintiffs has opposed the application submitting that the subject property was allotted in 1986 to M/s Ram Chand & Sons, a proprietorship firm of the father of the parties and therefore, the subject property comes within the array of suit properties, upon which this Court‟s status quo order dated 03.05.2019 operates. It is submitted that defendant vide I.A. 9350/2021 sought permission to sell the subject property, but without permission of this Court, the defendant sold the subject property on 11.08.2021.
Learned Counsel for plaintiffs contends that the present application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC by the defendant, is an attempt to retrospectively legitimise the sale of the subject property effected in violation of this Court‟s status quo order dated 03.05.2019.
It is further argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff that whenever the case is at the stage of evidence, a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC cannot be passed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
First of all, it is necessary to understand as to what is the settled position of law with regard to judgment on admissions. Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC reads thus:
“6. Judgment on admissions—
(1)Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question-between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2)Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.”
The above rule states that a decree can be passed at any stage of the trial of a claim if admitted by the opposite party. I would also like to refer to a Supreme Court‟s judgment in this regard, whereby the Court in Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 751 observed thus:
“39.This rule authorizes the court to enter a judgment where a claim is admitted and to pass a decree on such admitted claim. This can be done at any stage. [See: Uttam Singh v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120]. Thus, a plaintiff may move for judgment upon admission by the defendant in his written statement at any stage of the suit although he has joined issue on the defence.” [See: Brown v. Pearson, [L.R.] 21 Ch. 716]. Likewise, a defendant may apply for dismissal of the suit on the basis of admission by the plaintiff in rejoinder.”
Thus, the submission of learned counsel for plaintiffs cannot be accepted and it cannot be said that this is not the stage to file the application.
In light of the aforesaid position of law, it is necessary to see, on the basis of admissions, as to whether the plaintiff has admitted that the subject property is independently owned by defendant, namely Naresh Chand Gupta or is it a part of a joint family property and forms part of the subject properties. If it is a self owned property of defendant Sh. Naresh Chand Gupta, it will not remain a subject matter of partition.
Certain facts including plaintiffs‟ evidence are relied upon by the learned Counsel for the defendant, which according to him, may be considered as admissions on behalf of plaintiffs. These are:
a. Prior to filing of the present suit, plaintiff No. 3, vide her legal notice dated 21.04.2016 addressed to plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant, set out a detailed list of properties belonging to their parents which did not include any property at Bhiwadi, much less the subject property.
b. Plaintiffs in para 23 of the plaint have claimed that property at Bhiwadi was a separate property of defendant. The same is reproduced herein under:
"23.That the record would further reveal that the property at Bhiwadi was initially allotted to Plaintiff no. 1 in 1986 in the name of Ram Chand and Sons HUF (also mentioned as R.C and Sons). This was a separate property of the Plaintiff no.l. The same was forfeited by the land owing agency for certain defaults on the part of the Plaintiff No.1. The Defendant thereafter manipulates the documents with the land owing agency and has the same allotted to himself as a sole proprietor of a certain enterprise. A separate bank account in the name of the said enterprise has also been opened. The Defendant is enjoying the property ever since."
c. Plaintiff No.1 during his cross-examination dated 19.11.2019, admits that defendant has signed the lease deed dated 26.05.1988. The relevant portion of the cross examination is reproduced hereunder:
“Attention of the witness is drawn to a document at page 123 of the defendant's documents dated 06.06.2017 in Suit No. 124 of 2017, marked as Mark-X-3. I have seen this document in the case file. It is correct that Sh. Naresh Chand Gupta has signed this document as Proprietor of Ram Chand and Sons as shown in the document Vol. My father was of the view that somebody wants to occupy the said premises and there was correspondence done by my father Ram Chand Gupta. No such correspondence is on the Court file. Q.3. When, for the first time, did you come to know that the property Industrial Plot Bhiwadi, Rajasthan is in the name of Mr. Naresh Chand Gupta or his sole proprietorship firm? Ans. When my father was in the last stage of his life he told my uncle (mama) that the property has been got transferred by Naresh Chand Gupta in his name forcibly. My father did not take any legal steps against Naresh Chand Gupta in this regard. Vol. No father would like to do that to his son. My father passed away on 05.11.2010 on Diwali Day. After my father's death I had addressed a letter to the Authority as how the name in the document has been changed. I have not filed that letter on court file. It is wrong to suggest that I have not filed the said document since no such document exists. I have not taken any legal action against anybody about this plot. I had seen some documents in the file of the authority which were signed by Naresh Chand Gupta. I cannot say if they were signed on behalf of Ram Chand and Sons. I have not filed any document with regard to the Bhiwadi plot on the court file in this case. I cannot say if the said plot was ever purchased by me in my name. I do not know in whose name the plot was allotted but the allotment letter was given to me and I have a photograph recording the same."
d. Plaintiff No.2 during her cross-examination dated 24.03.2026, admits that the subject property was owned by her younger brother i.e. defendant namely Naresh Chand Gupta. The relevant part of the cross examination is extracted hereinbelow:
“The property at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan as stated by me in para 6 of my Affidavit, Ex. PW2/A was in the name of my elder brother/Mr. Rakesh Chand Gupta. My father had informed me that the above said property is owned by my elder brother/Mr. Rakesh Chand Gupta. It is correct that there were two properties in Rajasthan and the second property was also near the property at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. The second property was owned by my younger brother/Mr. Naresh Chand Gupta. I have never seen the title documents with respect to the two properties in Rajasthan. It is correct that my information regarding these two properties is as per what was told to me by my father. I am not aware of the address of either of the two properties.”
Relying upon the aforesaid cross-examination, it is submitted that the defendant is entitled to a judgment on admission to the effect that the subject property at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan does not form part of the subject matter of partition and it is prayed that the defendant may be held to be the sole and independent owner of the subject property.
The defendant in written statement has pleaded that he holds the subject property in his name as sole proprietor of M/s. Ram Chand and Sons.
It is argued by learned Counsel for the plaintiff that M/s. Ram Chand and Sons was a proprietorship firm setup by late Sh. Ram Chand Gupta, the father of the parties. The subject property was allotted to M/s. Ram Chand and Sons in the year 1996. Even the payments towards allotment were made by the plaintiff no.1 and not by the defendant. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff, therefore, argued that the subject property allotted to M/s. Ram Chand and Sons in the year 1988 was, in fact, a property of late Sh. Ram Chand Gupta and upon his death on 05.11.2010, the said concern ceased to exist and the property as stood in its name was subject to be distributed among his legal heirs.
Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs have argued that this application has been moved by the defendant with the sole purpose from absolving him from the contempt because he sold the property despite a status quo order.
I am not inclined to take the issue of contempt in consideration because presently this Court is only looking into the admissions of facts made by the plaintiff.
It is settled law that a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC can be passed only if the admissions are clear and unambiguous. Here the issue arises as to who was the proprietor of M/s. Ram Chand and Sons. It is true that the plaintiff no.1 has testified in cross-examination about defendant having signed as proprietor of M/s. Ram Chand and Sons but it cannot be held at this stage that plaintiffs have admitted the claim that defendant had become proprietor of that firm. In fact in cross-examination, the plaintiff no.1 has stated that the property had been got transferred by Mr. Naresh Chand Gupta in his name forcibly.
Learned Counsel for the defendant has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW2 (plaintiff no.2), who has stated in her cross-examination that subject property was owned by Mr. Naresh Chand Gupta – defendant. However, immediately, thereafter she has stated that she has never seen the title documents of these properties.
I am of the opinion that in view of these statements made by the plaintiffs in their cross-examination, it is difficult to reach to a straight conclusion as to whether the subject property should be considered to be the subject matter of partition or independent property of defendant.
It is necessary to mention here that in para 23 of the plaint (already reproduced), it is stated that this property was initially allotted to plaintiff no.1 in 1986 in the name of M/s. Ram Chand and Sons, HUF. However, the same was forfeited by land owning agency for certain defaults on the part of plaintiff no.1. It is averred that defendant thereafter manipulated the documents with the land owning agency and got the same allotted to himself as a sole proprietor of the said concern.
Therefore, these facts are required to be ascertained and crystallized after full trial. At present, I do not find it a fit case for passing a judgment on admissions.
The present application is accordingly dismissed.