Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a family dispute over the sale proceeds of ancestral agricultural land. The respondent No.1 (plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.45,00,000/- with interest, partition, and injunction against her father, mother, brothers, and sisters. The suit was based on the sale of 31 bighas 9 biswas of agricultural land in August 2007 for approximately Rs.15.31 crores. The plaintiff claimed her share in the sale proceeds. Defendant No.3 (the father of the appellants) filed a written statement on 25.03.2010, stating that the suit was collusive and that he had received Rs.3 crores from the sale proceeds. The trial court (Additional District Judge-04, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi) dismissed the application for decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC on 20.12.2017, holding that the admission was not clear and unambiguous. The High Court of Delhi, in Civil Revision Petition No. 53 of 2018, set aside the trial court's order and decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.44,79,167/- with interest against defendant No.3, relying on the admission of receipt of Rs.3 crores in the written statement. The appellants, being the daughters and legal heirs of defendant No.3, challenged the High Court's order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings without finding any jurisdictional error. The Court further held that the alleged admission was not clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal, and therefore could not be the basis for a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the trial court's order, directing the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Scope of Revision - High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings without finding any jurisdictional error in the trial court's order - Held that revisional power is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and cannot be used as a second appeal (Paras 10-15). B) Civil Procedure - Admission - Order 12 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Decree on Admission - Admission must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal; a conditional admission or one requiring interpretation cannot be the basis for a decree - Held that the alleged admission in the written statement was not clear and unambiguous, and the High Court erred in decreeing the suit without trial (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was justified in setting aside the trial court's order and decreeing the suit on the basis of an alleged admission in the written statement, without a trial.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.04.2019 of the High Court of Delhi, and restored the order dated 20.12.2017 of the Additional District Judge-04, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional errors
- not reappreciation of evidence
- Admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC must be clear
- unambiguous
- and unequivocal
- Decree cannot be passed on admission if the admission is conditional or requires interpretation
- High Court cannot substitute its own findings in revision without finding jurisdictional error
