VIJAY GUPTA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The simple question of law that arises for consideration in the present appeal with regard to the pre-requisites for passing a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is existence of certain unambiguous and clear admission or even an admission which is vague, uncertain and is conditional. The appellant no.1 is the wife while the appellants no.2 and 3 are the sons of late Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta. Late Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta had become a member of Lok Sevak Co-operative Building Society for purchasing a plot of land on instalments out of his personal savings. He was in employment since the year 1956 and the money towards the total cost of acquiring the plot and construction of building thereupon was Rs.46,000/- which was borne by Late Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta. The appellant no.1 who was then married to him was also serving as a teacher in a Delhi Administration School. The construction was completed after spending an amount of nearly Rs.1,86,000/- over a period of three years. The property bearing no. E-13, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi had been in exclusive possession of Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta and his family. The respondent no.1 filed a Suit No. 2585/1996 on 15.10.1996 for partition, possession, rendition of accounts and perpetual injunction in relation to the said property. The respondent claimed that Predecessor-in-interest of the parties and he were related to each other as brothers. Sh. N.K. Gupta and his parents were living in R.K. Puram and the family was a joint family. The plaintiff-respondent and Late Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta had purchased the plot measuring about 337.8 square yards, the property in question, jointly and had raised construction. Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta died on 28.2.1994. The respondent became an engineer after getting a Mechanical Engineering degree from the Delhi College of Engineering and studying in USA. After his marriage, he went to Nigeria and started living in the property in dispute. As he was the joint owner, he claimed rendition of accounts. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff and was contested by the appellant/respondent, who disputed that the respondent had any share in the property. According to the appellant, the appellants had been in possession of the property, Late Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta with an intention to secure his family and himself at later years of his life had purchased the property. In the year 1970, on the advise of his elders he had requested the Society to include the name of the respondent, who had not contributed any money towards the purchase or construction and had no right to claim partition or possession of the property. Along with the suit, the respondent had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of interim relief as well as filed an application during the pendency of the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the CPC for passing a preliminary decree on the basis of the admission made by the appellant herein. Both these applications were disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 16.1.2003.

(2.) The application for injunction was disposed of with a direction that the rent received by the appellant from the tenant shall be deposited in Court so that upon passing of the final decree the entitlement of the parties can finally and conveniently be determined. The application under Order 12 Rule 6 was also allowed by holding that on the admission of the appellants, the respondent was entitled to 50% share in the suit property resulting in passing of a preliminary decree and a Local Commissioner was appointed to give his report for partition of the property by meets and bounds. Aggrieved from this order, the appellants have filed the present appeal. Wide power is vested in the Court in terms of the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 to pass a decree at any stage of the proceedings upon application or on its own accord where an admission of a fact has been made either in the pleadings or otherwise, orally or in writing. But one facet that is clear beyond ambiguity is that the judgment has to be in regard to such admission. In other words, a decree passed in exercise of this provision cannot be beyond the specific admission made by a party. Necessarily it follows that the admission should be certain, unambiguous and clear. Before a party can be denied the right to lead its defence or contest the case on merits, the admission should be capable of being truly accepted, as an unequivocal admission of a fact. In a case titled as Charanjit Singh vs. Kehar Singh 2006 V AD (Delhi) 667 where on the basis of the conditions of a good receipt, issuance and execution of which was admitted, while partially setting aside the decree passed by the learned Trial Court under the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Court, a Division Bench of this Court held as under:-

(3.) Still in another case titled as Raj Kumar Chawla vs. Lucas Indian Services 129 (2006) Delhi Law Times 755, the Court in detail discussed the scope of the word "admission" as well as the principles governing passing of decrees of admission. The court clearly stated the principle that an admission has to be unambiguous, specific and clear to entitle a party to seek decree on 'admission'. In that case the Court had passed a decree on the basis of a letter stated to be admitting the liability towards the plaintiff. However, the latter, in view of the appellate court did not constitute an admission which could result in passing a decree, the Court upon discussion of relevant law held as under:-