SACHCHIDANAND SINGH Vs. NATHUNI YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision application. is directed against the order dated 30.5.1998 passed by the Subordinate Judge IV, Darbhanga, in Title Suit No. 68 of 1990 rejecting the petition of the plaintiff -petitioners purported to have been filed under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and refused to pronounce judgment.

(2.) THE plaintiffs -petitioners instituted the aforesaid suit seeking relief for declaration that the two sale deeds dated 18.11.1989 executed by Upendra Nath Shukla being attorney of Gangotri Dubey in favour of the defendants are null and void, illegal, without consideration, ineffective sham and collusive and not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed the suit property measuring 5 Bighas, 7 Kathas and 17 dhurs situated in village Ramashalla, P.S. Darbhanga, District Darbhanga, on the basis of settlement by the Ex -landlord in the year 1917 Fasli and also on the basis of the sale -deeds executed on different dates in the year 1922 and 1930 and further on the basis of continuous possession. According to the plaintiffs, Upendra Nath Shukla as an attorney had no right to execute the sale deeds as neither Gangotri Dubey nor his heirs had any right and title over the suit lands. The plaintiffs also challenged the sale deeds executed by Upendra Nath Shukla on the ground of jurisdiction of the Sub -registration office at Mahua in the district of Vaishali who has no jurisdiction to register the land situated at village Ramashalla in the District of Darbhanga. The plaintiffs' case is that a portion of land of village Kanhauli has been wrongly included in the sale deed dated 18.11.1989 which never belonged to the executant or his attorney and the same was included with a malajlde intention to play fraud on Mahua Registration Office. The defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement denying and disputing the averments made in the plaint and also disputed the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit property. However, after filing of the written statement, the plaintiffs -petitioners filed a petition purported to be under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating, inter alia, that the defendants in their written statement clearly and unequivocally admitted that the lands of village Kanhauli mentioned in the sale deeds do not belong to the donor or donee of power of attorney allegedly executed by Gangotri Prasad Dubey. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for pronouncement of Judgment and decree on admitted facts in favour of the plaintiffs. The Court below after hearing the parties rejected the petition holding that the judgment cannot be pronounced on a partial admission of the defendants inasmuch as several legal and factual pleas have been taken by the defendants and the plaintiffs cannot insist the Court to deliver judgment on a partial admission by the defendants. The said order is impugned in this revision application.

(3.) BEFORE appreciating the submissions of the learned Counsel it would be usefull to look into the Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under: