Recently, the Delhi High Court declined to grant a preliminary decree of partition in a family property dispute, holding that a “judgment on admissions” under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked where material facts remain contested. The Court ruled that when a registered Will has already demarcated property shares and factual disputes persist, the matter must proceed to trial. In doing so, the Court underscored a crucial principle: a decree on admissions is permissible only when the admission is clear, unequivocal, and leaves no real issue for adjudication.
Brief Facts:
The dispute concerned a residential property in Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, originally owned by the plaintiffs’ grandmother. In 1998, she executed a registered Will dividing the property floor-wise among her children, granting the ground floor and roof rights to three daughters, the first floor to one son, and the second floor (without roof rights) to the plaintiffs’ father. Following her demise, the plaintiffs’ father became the absolute owner of the second floor and resided there with his children. After his death in 2021, tensions escalated among family members.
The plaintiffs alleged obstruction in the use of common areas such as the staircase and passage, and further claimed that the second floor had fallen into a dilapidated condition requiring reconstruction, something they asserted could not be undertaken without cooperation of all co-owners. After failed pre-litigation mediation and issuance of a legal notice seeking sale of the entire property with distribution of proceeds, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition and moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, seeking a preliminary decree on the basis of alleged admissions in the defendants’ pleadings.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The plaintiffs argued that despite the Will’s floor-wise allocation, the property had not been partitioned by metes and bounds and therefore continued to retain the character of joint property. They contended that the deteriorated structural condition of the building rendered meaningful enjoyment of their share impossible without collective redevelopment.
According to them, since physical partition was impractical, sale of the entire property and distribution of proceeds was the only effective remedy. They maintained that the defendants’ acknowledgment of the Will and their respective shares amounted to sufficient admissions to justify a preliminary decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The defendants countered that the 1998 Will itself constituted a complete and binding partition, clearly allocating defined portions with absolute ownership rights. They denied any admission that could entitle the plaintiffs to summary relief and argued that allegations of obstruction, denial of access, or structural dilapidation were disputed factual claims requiring evidence. They further submitted that the plaintiffs were attempting to misuse Order XII Rule 6 CPC as a shortcut to compel sale of the property, bypassing a full-fledged trial.
Observations of the Court:
The Court undertook a careful reading of the Will and found that it “clearly demarcated the suit property into specific portions” and conferred absolute rights upon each beneficiary over their respective floors. On this basis, the Court observed that the property already stood divided in terms of ownership, and each party was aware of the portion to which they were entitled. The central controversy, therefore, was not about title or share but about alleged obstruction and practical enjoyment, questions that were “seriously disputed” and incapable of being resolved without evidence.
Reiterating settled law on Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Court emphasised that a judgment on admission can be passed only where the admission is “clear, unequivocal and unconditional,” leaving “no real issue for trial.” In the present case, the pleadings revealed contested assertions regarding access to common areas, structural condition, and feasibility of enjoyment. These were not mere legal inferences but factual disputes requiring adjudication. The Court firmly held that such issues “cannot be decided at the preliminary stage on the basis of pleadings alone.”
The decision of the Court:
Concluding that there was no clear and unambiguous admission warranting summary relief, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and directed the suit to proceed to trial for framing of issues and evidence. The ratio emerging from the ruling is unequivocal, where a registered Will has already demarcated property and factual disputes remain regarding enjoyment or interference, a preliminary decree of partition cannot be granted on alleged admissions, trial is indispensable.
Case Title: Sonia Sahni & Anr Vs. Smt Kamlesh Kapoor & Ors
Case No.: CS(OS) 747/2022
Coram: Hon'ble. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Tushar Mahajan, Adv. Sharan Mehta, Adv. Hardik Rupal,
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Raavi Birbal, Adv. Cauveri Birbal, Adv. Aishwarya Malhotra,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
