Anil Khanna v. Geeta Khanna & Ors. (Mukta Gupta, J.)
ILR (2014) I DELHI 1
ANIL KHANNA ….PLAINTIFF
GEETA KHANNA & ORS. ….DEFENDANTS
(MUKTA GUPTA, J.)
I.A. NO. : 4730/2011 DATE OF DECISION: 02.09.2013
CS (OS) NO. : 2320/10
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—S. 9—Suit—Order XII
Rule 6—Judgment on admission—Admission of fact
clear and unambiguous-admission on law not requirednot mandatory to act and pass judgment-an application
for judgment against D4 tenant-admission in written
statement-D4 admitted plaintiff and D1 to D3 co-sharer
of the suit property-D4 inducted into the suit property
as tenant by D1 to D3 at the back of the plaintiff-lease
executed by D1 to D3 not valid D4 liable to vacate the
premises—Contended right of tenancy could not be
raised an vague plea of settlement-or a contrary plea
of being co-sharer-pleadings insufficient for raising
an issue—D4 contended-admissions as alleged not in
the written statement-fact stated in the preliminary
objection without prejudice-do not constitute reply on
merit-verification averment in the preliminary
objections-believed to be true-legal information
received-D2 to WS division of property took placebeing a disputed question could not be decided at
this stage—Court Observed-distribution of equal
portion to each co-parcner being in possession of
each for a long time-accepted-enjoyed by them without
any objection-hindrance-denial-obstruction-amounts to
division/partition—Held- settled law if a co-parcner is
in exclusive possession of any portion of undivided piece of land or property not exceeding his or her
share-her share in possession cannot be disturbed
until partition-transferee would also have the right
and could not be dispossessed by other co-sharer
until partition-the property ancestral-D1 to D3 have
right in the said property-left behind by Sh. Ajay Khanna
husband of D2 and also through WILL the preliminary
objections based on legal advise-not replying on merit
where the parties require to plead fact specificallypreliminary objection-contrary plea not amount to
admission-further Held-for judgment on admission to
be pronounced at any stage admission to be of fact
clear and unambiguous-admissions not required of
questions of law-however not mandatory for the Court
to act and pass judgment the facts and circumstances
of each case have to be taken note of plaintiff himself
filed lease agreement—Therefore, it cannot be said
that the averment in the written statement vague
resulting in passing of defence in favour of the
Further the preliminary objections are based on legal advice.
The same are not reply on merits wherein the party is
required to plead facts specifically. In preliminary objections
parties can even take contrary pleas. The same would not
amount to an admission.
It is well settled that an admission has to be categorical, in
clear and unambiguous terms admitting the case of other
side. In Sneh Vasih and another vs. Filatex India Ltd.
and another, 95 (2002) DLT 373
Important Issue Involved: (a) Unnecessary scandpalous,
frivolous of fictitious pleadings which tend to prejudice and
embarrass or delay the fair trial are liable to be struck off
(b) for the judgment to be pronounced on admission, such
admissions must be admission of facts, must be clear and
unambiguous terms admitting the case of other parties. (c)
admission of questions of law is not required.
CASES REFERRED TO:
- Paam Antibiotics Ltd. vs. Sudesh Madhok, 186 2012 DLT
- Sathi Vijay Kumar, 2006 (13) SCC 353.
- Sneh Vasih and another vs. Filatex India Ltd. and another,
95 (2002) DLT 373.
- Mrs. Rekha Singal vs. Lavleen Singal, 96 (2002) DLT 289.
- D.M. Deshpande and others vs. Janardhan Kashinath
Kadam (dead) by LRs and others, AIR 1999 SC 1464.
- Manjit K. Singh vs. S. Kanwarjit Singh, 58 (1995) DLT
- I. Gouri and others vs. Dr. C.H. Ibrahim and another,
AIR 1980 Kerala 94.
- Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. Daya Ram Nagina Ram and
others, AIR 1961 Punjab 528.
- Chhedi Lal and another vs. Chhotey Lal, AIR (38) 1951