- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
R.K Markan. v. Rajiv Kumar Markan & Anr
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of property No. B-99, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, which belonged to the late Pushpa Markan, wife of the plaintiff and mother of the defendants. Pushpa Markan died on 7th June 1975, leaving a Will bequeathing the property to the plaintiff and his two minor sons, the defendants. The plaintiff obtained Letters of Administration in 1977, and the names of the plaintiff and defendants were mutated in the Delhi Development Authority records. The plaintiff claims a one-third share in the property, which is currently in possession of the defendants. The defendants filed a written statement with a counter claim. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree based on admissions allegedly made by the defendants in their written statement and counter claim.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the admissions made by the defendants in their written statement are unequivocal and unqualified so as to entitle the plaintiff to a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
- Whether the written statement and counter claim raise triable issues that preclude passing a decree on the basis of admissions alone.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The plaintiff contends that the defendants admitted in paragraph 5 of their written statement that both the plaintiff and defendants succeeded to the suit property and are each entitled to a one-third share.
- Based on this admission, the plaintiff seeks a decree for partition without further trial.
Respondents' Arguments
- The defendants argue there is no express or unequivocal admission in the written statement.
- They have filed a counter claim raising several triable issues, including an oral family settlement wherein the defendants would become absolute owners of the suit property in exchange for the plaintiff retaining other properties.
- The defendants assert that the written statement must be read as a whole, which reveals qualified admissions and raises disputes requiring trial.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the plaintiff's reliance on paragraph 5 of the defendants' written statement, which acknowledged succession rights to the property. However, the court noted that the defendants' admission was qualified by subsequent averments referencing the counter claim and other paragraphs. The defendants alleged a family settlement and raised issues of manipulation and usurpation of other properties by the plaintiff. The court emphasized that for a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC to be passed on admissions, the admissions must be unequivocal and unqualified and considered as a whole. Since the written statement contained qualifying statements and raised triable issues, the court concluded that the admissions were not unambiguous and that the matter required a full trial. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for decree was dismissed.
Holding and Implications
The plaintiff's application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree based on admissions was dismissed.
The decision means that the suit for partition will proceed to trial to resolve the triable issues raised by the defendants. No decree can be passed solely on the basis of partial or qualified admissions in pleadings. The ruling does not establish new precedent but reinforces the established principle that admissions must be clear and unqualified to dispense with trial.
Sharda Aggarwal, J.— The plaintiff has moved the present application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree on the basis of the admissions made in the written statement/counter claim of the defendants.
2. Plaintiff has filed this suit for partition in respect of property No. B-99, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi which undisputably belonged to late Pushpa Markan, wife of the plaintiff and mother of defendants 1 and 2. Smt Pushpa Markan died on 7th June, 1975. She had left a ‘Will’ bequeathing the property to the plaintiff and defendants, her two minor sons. The plaintiff had filed a probate case on which Letters of Administration were granted on 24th March, 1977. The name of the plaintiff and the defendants was also mutated in the records of Delhi Development Authority. The plaintiff being one of the legal heirs of deceased Pushpa Markan, claims 1/3rd share in the suit property. The house in question at present is in possession of the defendants. Defendants have filed their written statement alongwith the counter claim.
3. The plaintiff prays that the suit be decreed in view of admissions made by defendants in para No. 5 of the written statement. The contention is that defendants in the written statement have admitted that the plaintiff and the defendants succeeded to the suit property left by Smt. Pushpa Markan and each of the plaintiff and defendants are entitled to 1/3rd share in the property.
4. Learned counsel for the defendants contends that there is no express or unequivocal admission in the written statement. The contention is that defendants have filed a counter claim and have raised a number of triable issues. The defence is that the parties have entered into an oral family arrangement/settlement to the effect that the defendants would be the absolute owners of the suit property and in lieu of the plaintiff's share, plaintiff would retain property No. 100, Manak Vihar, Opposite Yozna Vihar, Delhi and one shop being Shop No. G-3, Neel Kanth Chamber, Savita Vihar Shopping Centre, Delhi - 10092.
5. For passing a decree on the basis of admission of the defendants in the pleadings, law is well settled that the admission has to be unequivocal and unqualified and the admission in the written statement should also be taken as a whole and not in part. In this case, plaintiff based his claim for a decree on para No. 5 of the written statement, which is reproduced as under:
“5. In reply to paragraph 5, it is submitted that in so far as the right to succeed to the property of late Smt. Pushpa Markan is concerned, the plaintiff and the defendants succeeded and each of the plaintiff and the defendants is entitled to one-third share in the property. However, attention of the Hon'ble Court is invited to the detailed submissions made in the counter claim as also submissions made to the various paragraphs of the plaint hereunder.”
6. The plaintiff picked up only half of this para and ignored the later part which qualifies the averments made in the earlier part. The plaintiff also ignores the qualifying averments made in the written statement. Defendants have alleged that 1/3rd share in another property No. 5727, Gali No. 81, Regar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was bequeathed to them by their grand mother. The plaintiff, who had re-married after the death of Smt. Pushpa Markan, their mother, had manipulated the sale of Regar Pura property. He also usurped the other moveables left by the deceased Pushpa Markan and with the proceeds thereof purchased the house at Manak Vihar and a shop in Neel Kanth Chamber. The plaintiff left Ashok Vihar residential house i.e suit property some time in June, 1997 and at that time had entered into an oral family settlement giving up his right in Ashok Vihar property and retaining the property at Manak Vihar and the shop in Neel Kanth Chamber, Savita Vihar. The defendants in their counter claim have alleged that either the family settlement be adhered to which makes the defendants absolute owner of the suit property and if that is not done, they are entitled to 2/3rd share in Manak Vihar property and in the shop in Neel Kanth Chamber, Savita Vihar. They have also claimed to recover a sum of Rs. 11 lakhs which allegedly belonged to them being the consideration received by the plaintiff on account of sale of Regar Pura property. In view of the averments in the written statement taken as a whole, it cannot be said that the admission of defendants is unambiguous and unequivocal. The averments made in the written statement in fact give rise to a triable issue. The application of the plaintiff accordingly deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly.
Alert