Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from two agreements of sale dated 26-10-2007 executed between the petitioner (plaintiff) and the first respondent (defendant) for the purchase of 36 acres of land in Anekal Taluk at ₹50 lakhs per acre. The first respondent, claimed to be the absolute owner, did not execute the sale deed and instead demanded a higher price of ₹1.25 crores per acre. Consequently, the plaintiff instituted O.S.No.563 of 2008 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anekal, seeking specific performance of the agreements. The defendants filed written statements, and issues were framed on 04-01-2013. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.17 under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for a partial decree in respect of the first defendant’s 40% share in the suit property, relying on what it claimed were admissions in the written statement that the first defendant owned a 40% share and had agreed to sell it. The defendants opposed the application, contending that there was no clear admission, the plaintiff had not demonstrated readiness and willingness, and the suit was being protracted. The trial court, by order dated 09-06-2025, rejected the application, holding that the application could not be considered at that stage. The plaintiff then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the trial court’s order. The core legal issue was whether the trial court correctly rejected the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and whether a partial decree could be passed on the basis of the alleged admissions when the suit for specific performance was still pending. The petitioner argued that the first defendant had unequivocally admitted his 40% share and his agreement to sell, and thus the trial court ought to have drawn a partial decree to that extent. The respondents countered that the suit was pending for 17 years, the plaintiff had never shown readiness and willingness to perform his part, and the admissions were not unconditional; they sought dismissal of the writ petition with a direction to expedite the suit. The High Court examined the materials on record. It noted that the suit was for specific performance based on two agreements—one registered and one unregistered—and a general power of attorney. The first defendant had not come forward to execute the sale deed, and the plaintiff had issued a legal notice proposing an increase in consideration. The Court observed that the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was filed seeking a partial decree for 40% share based on the first defendant’s written statement. The trial court’s order indicated that the plaintiff itself had pleaded in the plaint that the first defendant was the absolute owner of the entire schedule property, contradicting its later claim that the defendant owned only a 40% share. The trial court found that there was no clear admission warranting a partial decree. The High Court agreed, emphasizing that for an admission to be acted upon under Order XII Rule 6, it must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. A partial decree cannot be granted when the core relief of specific performance remains contested and the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness is yet to be proved. Finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The order of the trial court dated 09-06-2025 was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Partial Decree - Requirement of Clear Admission for Judgment on Admissions - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XII Rule 6 - In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff sought a partial decree for 40% of the suit property based on alleged admissions in the written statement. The trial court rejected the application, finding that the admissions were not clear and unconditional. The High Court upheld this rejection, holding that an admission must be unequivocal to invoke Order XII Rule 6 CPC; a partial decree cannot be granted when the core relief of specific performance is contested and the issue of readiness and willingness is not determined. Held that the admission was not clear and the writ petition was dismissed (Paras 3, 3.1, 7, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for passing a partial decree based on alleged admissions in the written statement in a pending suit for specific performance.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed; the order of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anekal dated 09-06-2025 rejecting I.A.No.17 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was confirmed.
Law Points
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC requires clear and unequivocal admission
- partial decree cannot be granted in a suit for specific performance when the main relief is pending and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness is yet to be established
- admission must be unambiguous and not gathered from unclear statements.
