Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order and judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Vidyavihar Palm-View Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and its Secretary) had filed a suit seeking declarations that an indenture of lease dated 19th April, 1989 executed by respondent No.3 (MHADA) in their favour was valid, binding, and subsisting, and that a subsequent indenture of lease dated 23rd May, 2003 executed by MHADA in favour of the appellant (Bhartiya Vidya Sabha) was null and void to the extent of an open plot of land admeasuring about 270 sq.mtrs. The appellant was the original defendant No.3. The lease deed in favour of the respondent No.1 pertained to CTS No. 1268(p), while the lease deed in favour of the appellant pertained to CTS No. 464(p). The respondent No.1's lease was admittedly prior in time. The Single Judge passed a decree on admission, presumably on the basis that the appellant admitted the respondent's lease and that the appellant's lease overlapped. The appellant challenged this decree. The Division Bench (S.J. Vazifdar and Revati Mohite Dere, JJ.) allowed the appeal, holding that there was no clear and unambiguous admission by the appellant. The lease deeds pertained to different survey numbers, and the appellant had not admitted that its lease overlapped with the respondent's land or that the respondent's lease was valid. The court set aside the impugned order and judgment and directed that the suit proceed for trial. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Decree on Admission - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Clear and Unambiguous Admission - The court held that a decree on admission can only be passed if the admission is clear, unambiguous, and unconditional. In the present case, the lease deeds pertained to different survey numbers (CTS No. 1268(p) for respondent and CTS No. 464(p) for appellant), and there was no admission by the appellant regarding the overlapping of land or the validity of the respondent's lease. The impugned decree was set aside. (Paras 1-5) B) Property Law - Lease Deed - Overlapping Land - Different Survey Numbers - The court noted that the lease deed in favour of the respondent was in respect of CTS No. 1268(p) and the lease deed in favour of the appellant was in respect of CTS No. 464(p). There was no clear admission that the appellant's lease overlapped with the respondent's land. The matter required trial. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in passing a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC when the lease deeds pertained to different survey numbers and there was no clear admission of liability by the appellant.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order and judgment of the learned Single Judge granting a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is set aside. The suit is restored to its original position and shall proceed for trial in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC
- decree on admission
- clear and unambiguous admission
- lease deed
- overlapping land
- summary judgment
