Recently, the Supreme Court held that a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can be passed only where the admission is clear, unequivocal, and unconditional, and not where disputed questions of fact require adjudication through evidence. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order, which had granted a money decree solely on the basis of a statement made in a written statement regarding receipt of sale proceeds under a family settlement. Restoring the Trial Court's order, the Bench reaffirmed that pleadings must be read as a whole and that a statement acknowledging receipt of money cannot, by itself, be treated as an admission of legal liability.
Brief facts:
The dispute arose within a Hindu family following the sale of agricultural land for over ₹15 crore. One of the family members instituted a suit seeking partition, recovery of money, and other consequential reliefs, claiming entitlement to a share in the sale proceeds. During the proceedings, one of the defendants stated in his written statement that he had received ₹3 crore pursuant to a family settlement. Relying on that statement, the plaintiff later sought a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, contending that the defendant had received more than his lawful share and was liable to refund the excess amount. While the Trial Court rejected the application and held that the matter required evidence, the High Court reversed that decision and granted a money decree on the basis of the alleged admission. The dispute thereafter reached the Apex Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellants argued that the High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC by interfering with the Trial Court's finding that the dispute involved triable issues. The counsel submitted that the statement relied upon by the plaintiff was not a clear or unconditional admission of liability but merely a reference to a family settlement. The Appellants further contended that several disputed questions remained unresolved, including whether the amount represented the defendant's own share, whether any enforceable claim existed against him, and whether the plaintiff could maintain a recovery action against him at all. According to them, these issues could only be decided after a full trial and an appreciation of evidence.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent argued that the defendant had unequivocally admitted receiving ₹3 crore from the sale proceeds. Since the parties were subsequently held entitled to equal shares in the family property, it was contended that the defendant had received an amount exceeding his lawful entitlement and was therefore liable to refund the excess. The Respondent submitted that the admission was clear, unambiguous, and sufficient to attract Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, justifying a decree without a full-fledged trial.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is an exception to the ordinary rule that civil disputes must be decided after parties are afforded an opportunity to lead evidence. Reiterating the settled legal position, the Bench emphasised that a decree can be founded on an admission only when the admission is completely free from doubt or ambiguity. The Court observed, “The admission must be categorical, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal.” It further made clear that where a statement requires interpretation, inference, or examination of surrounding circumstances, the matter cannot be disposed of merely on the basis of such alleged admission and must proceed to trial.
The Bench noted that the statement relied upon by the plaintiff merely recorded that the defendant had received ₹3 crore pursuant to a family settlement and did not contain any admission of liability. The Court found that the statement neither acknowledged that the amount had been received in excess of the defendant's entitlement nor admitted that any amount was payable to the plaintiff. In the Court's view, the High Court had erroneously treated an admission of receipt of money as an admission of legal liability. The Court therefore concluded that the alleged admission could not, by itself, justify passing a decree without a proper adjudication of the underlying disputes.
The Court held that pleadings cannot be dissected by isolating a single sentence while ignoring the overall defence taken by a party. The Bench observed, “Pleadings have to be read as a whole and not in isolation.” The Court found that the High Court had selectively relied upon one statement from the written statement while overlooking the defendant's consistent stand that the amount had been received as his rightful share under a family arrangement. The Bench further noted that several disputed factual issues remained unresolved and that the Trial Court had already framed issues and directed the parties to lead evidence, clearly demonstrating the existence of triable questions requiring a full trial.
Further, the Court observed that the High Court had travelled beyond the permissible limits of its revisional jurisdiction by substituting its own view for that of the Trial Court despite the absence of any jurisdictional error. The Bench held that once substantial factual disputes existed, interference with the Trial Court's decision refusing a decree on admission was unwarranted. Emphasising judicial restraint in revisionary proceedings, the Court observed that the High Court “could not substitute its own view merely because another interpretation of the facts was possible.”
The decision of the Court:
Allowing the appeal, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court and restored the Trial Court's order rejecting the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. The Court held that the alleged admission was neither clear nor unequivocal and that the controversy involved substantial disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication through a full trial and appreciation of evidence.
Case Title: Pushpa & Ors. Vs. Dayawati & Ors.
Case No.: Diary No. 26304 of 2019
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Hon’ble Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR Rakesh Kumar-i
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. Anand Yadav, Adv. Pradyumn Rao
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
