Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru delivered a common judgment in two regular first appeals filed by the same appellant, M.R. Raghuram, against the dismissal of his suits for declaration and partition. The dispute centered around agricultural lands measuring approximately 666 acres originally acquired by late M.S. Ramaiah, the father of the parties. In 1970, M.S. Ramaiah orally partitioned 532 acres among his family members, retaining 30 acres for himself, leaving 104 acres disputed as to whether they were retained or apportioned. After his death in 1997, a Memorandum of Family Arrangement dated 25.07.1998 confirmed the division of remaining properties. Subsequently, two registered documents were executed: a Memorandum of Confirmation of Oral Family Arrangement cum Partition dated 18.11.2005, and a Deed of Family Arrangement cum Partition dated 28.08.2006. The appellant, one of the sons, alleged that these documents were executed without his consent and filed O.S. No. 1478/2006 on 19.01.2006 seeking a declaration that they were not binding on him, and for permanent injunction. That suit was initially dismissed on 01.08.2008, but on appeal was remanded in 2012 for fresh consideration. Meanwhile, the appellant filed O.S. No. 507/2010 seeking partition of the 104 disputed acres. During the pendency of that suit, the appellant and respondents 3, 4, 6, and 7 entered into a registered Deed of Family Settlement cum Arrangement on 25.01.2017 and filed a compromise petition on 01.02.2017, admitting the validity of the 2005 and 2006 documents concerning those respondents. This was opposed by respondents 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9, and the Trial Court deferred recording of the compromise. On 12.12.2018, those opposing respondents filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, contending that the appellant’s admissions in the compromise petition resolved the entire dispute and sought dismissal of both suits. The application was initially dismissed, but on a writ petition, the High Court remitted the matter back. The Trial Court, by orders dated 20.02.2020, dismissed both suits based on the admissions. The appellant challenged these dismissals before the High Court. The appeals were heard, and judgment was reserved on 22.01.2025.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Admissions - Judgment on Admissions - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XII Rule 6 - The Trial Court dismissed two suits for declaration and partition on the basis of an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, relying upon admissions made by the plaintiff in a compromise petition regarding the validity of family arrangement documents dated 18.11.2005 and 28.08.2006. The plaintiff appealed against the dismissal. (Paras 7-8) B) Family Law - Partition - Oral Partition and Family Arrangements - The case involved an oral partition of 532 acres in 1970 out of total 666 acres, leaving 104 acres disputed, and subsequent family arrangement documents executed in 1998, 2005, and 2006. The plaintiff claimed the 2005 and 2006 documents were executed without his consent. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suits for partition and declaration based on admissions made by the plaintiff in a compromise petition under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and whether the documents dated 18.11.2005 and 28.08.2006 are binding on the plaintiff.
Law Points
- Admissions in pleadings can form basis for judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC
- family arrangements require consent of all parties
- partition of joint family property
