Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Application filed by the Plaintiff challenging the Trial Court's order rejecting his application for a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No.787 of 2023 seeking an injunction against the Defendants from interfering with suit property described as 1B, admeasuring 14,927 square meters. The Plaintiff claimed ownership based on sale deeds from erstwhile owners. He sought a decree on admission, arguing that the Defendants had admitted his title in counter-claims filed in two previous suits (Special Civil Suit No.1548 of 2010 and Special Civil Suit No.1551 of 2010). The Trial Court rejected the application, leading to the revision. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any clear and unambiguous admission by the Defendants. The court noted that the Plaintiff could not juxtapose the description of the suit property in the plaint with the properties mentioned in the Defendants' counter-claims to show they were the same. The court emphasized that for a decree under Order XII Rule 6, the admission must be plain, clean, and relate to the same cause of action. The Plaintiff's arguments that the Defendants' denial of executing sale deeds constituted an admission of ownership were rejected as impermissible inferences. The court also noted that the Defendants had filed an affidavit-in-reply denying the Plaintiff's claims. Consequently, the court found no error in the Trial Court's order and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Decree on Admission - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Clear and Unambiguous Admission Required - The court held that for a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, and relate to the same cause of action. The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Defendants' statements in previous counter-claims constituted an admission of the Plaintiff's title to the suit property described in paragraph 1B of the plaint. (Paras 8-10) B) Civil Procedure - Admissions in Previous Proceedings - Consideration Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC - The court noted that while admissions made in other proceedings can be considered, they must correspond to the property in dispute. The Plaintiff could not show that the area and description of the property in the previous counter-claims matched the suit property. (Paras 8-9) C) Civil Procedure - Scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC - No Inference of Admission from Denial - The court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the Defendants' denial of executing sale deeds amounted to an admission of the Plaintiff's ownership, as such inference was not permissible under the rule. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the Plaintiff's application for a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, based on alleged admissions made by the Defendants in counter-claims filed in previous suits.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the Trial Court's order rejecting the Plaintiff's application for a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Law Points
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC requires clear and unambiguous admission
- admission must relate to same cause of action
- admissions in previous proceedings can be considered but must correspond to suit property
- court cannot infer admissions from vague or inconsistent statements
