SANTOSH HASSIJA Vs. AMARJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 10. 8. 2006 whereby an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC moved by the petitioner for passing of a decree on the basis of admission was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession of servant quarter claiming that the petitioner had purchased this servant quarter along with the ground floor and the servant quarter was part of the ground floor of property no. 31/12 East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The servant quarter is presently in occupation of the purchaser of first floor in the same property. In all, there are five floors in the building; all the five floors have been sold separately to different persons by the builder. However, there are only four servant quarters. These servant quarters are not at the same level at which the floors are there. The first servant quarter is in between ground floor and first floor, second servant quarter is in between first floor and second floor and so on. Each of the floor owner above ground floor is in occupation of the servant quarter only ground floor owner i. e. petitioner is not in occupation of the servant quarter. The petitioner has staked his claim on the servant quarter which is lying in between ground floor and first floor. The sale deed in favour of the petitioner is similar to the sale deed which is in favour of the respondent. In both the sale deeds what has been sold is one floor, there is no mention of separate servant quarter. However, the possession of servant quarter was allegedly handed over to the respondents who purchased the first floor. The petitioner's evidence has been recorded before the trial court and petitioner had admitted that possession of servant quarter being with respondent.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the respondent while replying to paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 11 and 13 of the plaint in WS had made categorical admission that the petitioner was owner of entire ground floor with attached servant quarter and all the floors of the said property had attached servant quarter. It is submitted that when the respondent wanted to amend the ws and withdrew this admission, the Court below had not allowed the amendment on the ground that this would amount to withdrawal of admission.