Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from a civil suit filed by the respondent (original plaintiff) against the appellants (original defendants) for possession, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction, and mesne profit regarding a property in Delhi. The plaintiff claimed ownership since 2013 and that defendant No.1 was a tenant who illegally sublet to defendant No.2, leading to tenancy termination in 2018. The defendants filed a written statement asserting that defendant No.2 was the absolute owner due to an agreement to sell and payment of Rs. 19 lakhs, with a pending suit for specific performance against the plaintiff. The plaintiff then applied for a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, citing admissions in the written statement. The Trial Court dismissed this application, finding no clear admission, but the High Court allowed a revision petition, quashing the Trial Court's order and passing an eviction decree on admission. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing no clear admission existed and highlighting the pending specific performance suit. The respondent contended that the written statement admitted plaintiff's ownership and defendant No.1's tenancy, and that an agreement to sell does not confer ownership. The Supreme Court examined the written statement, noting defendants' claim of ownership and admission that they were 'not now the tenant' but 'actual owner'. The Court reasoned that until the specific performance suit is decided in favor of defendant No.2, she cannot be considered the owner, and thus the plaintiff remains the owner with defendant No.1 as tenant. This was treated as a clear admission, justifying the decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment and decree of eviction on admission.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Decree on Admission - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XII Rule 6 - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decree of eviction on admission, finding that the defendants' written statement contained clear admissions that the plaintiff was the owner and defendant No.1 was the tenant, despite defendant No.2's claim of ownership based on an agreement to sell. Held that such admissions warranted a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, as the agreement to sell did not confer ownership pending a specific performance suit. (Paras 8-9) B) Property Law - Ownership and Tenancy - Admission in Written Statement - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XII Rule 6 - The Court analyzed the written statement where defendants stated they were 'not now the tenant' but 'actual owner', interpreting this as an admission of plaintiff's ownership and defendant No.1's tenancy. Held that defendant No.2's claim of ownership via an agreement to sell was insufficient to negate admission, as ownership only arises after a specific performance decree or sale deed execution. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in passing a decree of eviction on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 based on the admissions in the written statement filed by the defendants
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment and order dated 14.11.2019, which allowed the civil revision petition, quashed the Trial Court's order, and passed a decree of eviction on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC in favor of the plaintiff.
Law Points
- Decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 requires clear and unambiguous admission of facts
- ownership and tenancy can be inferred from written statement
- agreement to sell does not confer ownership until specific performance decree or sale deed execution
