Bombay High Court
Shruti Mayank Shah vs Ulltra Lifespace Private Limited on 23 September, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:16133
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT (L) NO.232 OF 2025
Shruti Mayank Shah
Aged 58 years, Occupation: Housewife
Residing at Flat No. 1304, 13th Floor
"81 Aureate", KC Road,
Near Rangsharda, Bandra Reclamation,
Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400 050
and also at 801, 8th Floor, Sudharmaa
N.S. Road No.5, V Mehta Road, JVPD
Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai - 56. ....Plaintiff
-Versus-
1. Ulltra Lifespace Private Limited
Through its Director Jignesh P Shah
having Address at CTS 791A(PT), Jamat-
E-Jamooria CHS LTD, Near Telephone
Exchange, bandra (West), Mumbai,
Maharashtra, 400050.
2. Pyramid Developers
Through its partners: Mr. Rafique M.
Qureshi and Mr. Saleh N Mithiborwala
having office at 25, 2nd Floor, Dheeraj
Heritage, S.V.Road, Santacruz (West),
Mumbai - 400054.
3. Varun Ghanshyam Golaniya
Plot No. 612, B/23 Anita CHS Ltd.,
Sector 6 Near RSC 52 Charkop
Kandivali (west), Kandivali, Mumbai 67.
4. Mrs. Duggu Ketan Patel
Adult
5. Ketan Jitendrabhai Patel
Aged 54 years, Both 4 and 5 residing at
Page No. 1 of 34
23 September 2025
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:47:42 :::
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
G-1, Neelkamal Complex, Near Havmor
restaurant, Beside ShrijiBaug,
Navragpura, Ahmedabad, Gujrat - 38009
and also residing at 19/B , Shivsankalp
Society, Naranpura Post Office,
Ahmedabad City, Gujarat - 380 013.
6. Manesh Dayashankar Madeka
Adult, residing at Maya Parnakuti
Society, Street No.5, Plot No. 61, Nan
Mava Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360 001.
7. Abid Ghulam Hussain
Adult, residing at 704, Dheeraj Heritage
1, Shashtri Nagar, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai - 54.
8. Ajinkya Pradeep Waradkar
Adult, residing at 116, Rajendra Nagar
Jhopadpatti, Datta Pada Road, Rajendra
Nagar, Borivali (E), Mumbai - 400 066. .... Defendants
______________________________________________________________
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Khanna i/b. Ms. Devika
Nigde, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Pramod Bhosle with Mr. Praful B. Valvi, for Defendant No.1.
Dr. Yusuf Iqbal Yusuf with Ms. Shaista Pathan, Mr. Zain Shroff and
Mr. Shahbazkhan Sandi i/b. M/s. YNA Legal, for Defendant Nos.4 and 5.
Mr. Ranit Basu with Ms. Maitri Malade, Ms. Dua Shaikh & Ms. Harshada
Nirmal i/b. M/s. Bridgehead Law Partners, for Defendant No.6.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Reserved on : 18 SEPTEMBER 2025.
Pronounced on : 23 SEPTEMBER 2025.
Page No. 2 of 34
23 September 2025
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:47:42 :::
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
JUDGMENT :
-
1) Plaintiff has sought a decree on admission under the provisions
of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code)
contending that the contesting Defendants have given admissions of fact
both in the pleadings as well as in the documents admitting the claim of
Plaintiff.
2) Plaintiff 's case, as pleaded in the Plaint, is as under :-
By registered Agreement for Sale dated 14 December 2020, Plaintiff
purchased Flat No.1304 admeasuring 205.20 sq.meters on 13 th floor of
the building known as '81 Aureate' together with 4 car parking spaces
situated at K.C. Road, near Rangsharada, Bandra Reclamation, Bandra
(West), Mumbai-400 050 (suit premises). The Agreement for Sale shows
payment of consideration of Rs.11.75 crores by Plaintiff, who claims to
be in exclusive and undisturbed possession of the suit premises since
December 2020. She has been paying maintenance bills raised by the first
Defendant-Developer. The building '81 Aureate' is constructed by
M/s. Pyramid Developers (Defendant No.2) as promoter and M/s. Ulltra
Lifespace Private Ltd. (Ulltra) as co-promoter, who have caused sale of
the suit premises to the Plaintiff vide Agreement of Sale dated
14 December 2020.
3) In September 2024, Plaintiff learnt about an Allotment Letter
in respect of suit premises through WhatsApp group, where some of the
property agents had circulated copy of Allotment Letter dated
9 May 2024 issued in respect of the suit premises. Plaintiff conducted
search and came to know about Allotment Letter dated 9 May 2024 and
Agreement dated 31 July 2024. The Allotment Letter dated 9 May 2024 is
shown to have been issued by one '81 Aureate' (non-existent entity) in
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
favour of Defendant No.4. Allotment Letter is not in the name of
Defendant No.1, who has denied having issued any such Allotment
Letter. The website as well as phone number reflected in the Allotment
Letter also do not connect the same to Defendant No.1 and is found to be
fictitious and sham. The sale consideration mentioned in the Allotment
Letter is shown as only Rs.3.5 crores. So far as Agreement dated
31 July 2024 is concerned, it is shown to have been executed and
registered by an entity 'Ultra Life Space Private Ltd.' in favour of
Defendant No.5. According to Plaintiff there is no entity by name 'Ultra
Life Space Private Ltd.'. According to the Plaintiff, the said Agreement
does not make correct statement of fact relating to such construction of
the building and location of the suit premises as the building is shown to
be under construction, when the construction was complete in 2020 and
the suit premises are shown to be located on 25 th floor, which are actually
located on 13th floor. Consideration shown in the Agreement is Rs.8.78
crores, out of which Rs.25 lakhs is shown to be paid before execution of
the Agreement and the balance Rs.8.53 crores was payable after availing
bank loan. Agreement is shown to have been signed by Defendant No.3
on behalf of 'Ultra Life Space Private Ltd.' on the basis of purported
board resolution, which is a made-up document. According to the
Plaintiff purported Agreement dated 31 July 2024 executed in favour of
Defendant No.5 is illegal, fraudulent and bogus document on the basis of
which Defendant No.5 has not acquired any title in the suit premises.
Within 22 days of execution of the Agreement dated 31 July 2024,
another Agreement is executed and registered on 22 August 2024 showing
sale of suit premises by Defendant No.5 to Defendant No.6 for
consideration of Rs.12 Crores.
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
4) According to the Plaintiff, even the Agreement dated
22 August 2024 is null and void and Defendant No.6 has not acquired
any title in the suit premises based on the said Agreement. Plaintiff served
letter dated 1 October 2024 to Defendant Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and sought
cancellation of the impugned documents. Defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6
engaged a common advocate and addressed letter dated 3 October 2024 to
the Plaintiff stating inter alia that the said Defendants would investigate
the matter and would take necessary steps to rectify the error if found
necessary. Additionally, an email dated 17 November 2024 was sent by
the Advocate of the said Defendants to the Plaintiff 's Advocate
communicating that the said Defendants were in the process of
cancellation of the property Agreement. However, since the Agreements
have not been cancelled, Plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking
declaration of title in respect of the suit premises and seeking cancellation
of the Agreement for Sale dated 31 July 2024 and Sale Deed dated 22
August 2024.
5) On 14 January 2025, when Suit was moved for ad-interim
injunction, a statement was made by the common Advocate appearing for
Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 (who had sent reply dated 3 October 2024 and
email dated 17 November 2024) that her clients shall not act on the
impugned Documents and Agreements in respect of the suit premises.
The statement was accepted as undertaking given to the Court. By order
dated 10 February 2025, Defendant Nos.3 to 8 have been restrained from
acting on the impugned Agreements and Documents in respect of suit
premises. On 28 February 2025, statement was made on behalf of
Defendant Nos.4 and 5 for deposit of Agreements dated 31 July 2024 and
22 August 2024 in the Court. Accordingly, the Agreements have been
deposited with the Court.
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
6) Defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 have filed their respective Affidavits-
in Reply to Interim Application (L) No.377 of 2025, which has been
disposed of by order dated 9 September 2025 directing that the ad-interim
relief granted shall continue to operate as interim relief during pendency
of the Suit. Based on alleged admissions made by the contesting
Defendants in correspondence as well as in the pleadings, Plaintiff has
urged that the judgment be pronounced on admissions under the
provision of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
7) Mr. Kamat, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff 's title in respect the suit premises in not
questioned by Defendant Nos.5 and 6 as there is no challenge to the
registered Agreement for Sale dated 14 December 2020 executed in her
favour. That subsequent Agreements in respect of suit premises
purportedly executed in favour of Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 do not
otherwise confer any title in their favour. That it is not the case of
Defendant Nos. 5 or 6 that due diligence was done before execution of
the impugned Agreements and that therefore they cannot take defence of
bonafide purchasers without notice. That the whole purpose of a
registration of a document is to make the world known of execution of
documents evidencing purchase of property. That a simple due diligence,
if conducted by Defendant Nos.4 and 5, would have enabled them to
acquire knowledge of Plaintiff 's purchase of the suit premises on
14 December 2020. That there are specific admissions given by the
Defendants in correspondence before filing of the Suit. That in letter
dated 3 October 2024, a common Advocate on behalf of Defendant
Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 showed willingness to examine title of suit premises and
to execute necessary documents to ramify loss caused to the Plaintiff.
That said Advocate sent email on 17 November 2024 admitting
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
irregularities in the registered documents and showed willingness to
initiate process of cancellation of the Agreement. That in addition to
admissions in correspondence, Defendant Nos.5 and 6 have also given
admissions in their Affidavits that Defendant No.5 has admitted that
fraud has been played in the matter of execution of Agreement dated
31 July 2024 in his favour. He has further admitted that forged documents
have been annexed to the said Agreement dated 31 July 2024. That
Defendant No.6 has admitted in his Affidavit that he is ready and willing
to cancel the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.5 in his favour subject
to refund of money paid by him to Defendant No.5 and that Defendant
No.6 is no longer interested in the suit premises.
8) Mr. Kamat would accordingly submit that there are specific
admissions by Defendant Nos.5 and 6 in correspondence as well as in
pleadings thereby entitling Plaintiff for judgment on admissions under the
provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. Mr. Kamat would rely upon
judgment of the Apex Court in Saroj Salkan Versus. Huma Singh and Ors. 1
and Karam Kapahi and others Versus. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust
and Another2 and of this Court in SRL Limited Versus. Techtrek India
Limited3 in support of his contention that public at large are deemed to
have knowledge of registered document. Reliance is placed on judgment
of the Apex Court in Dilboo (Smt.) (dead) by LRs. And others Versus.
Dhanraji (Smt.) (dead) and others 4 in support of his contention that prior
to registration, knowledge of document is not proved. Reliance is placed
by Mr. Kamat on judgment of the Apex Court in Kaushik Premkumar
Mishra and Anr. Versus. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr 5.
Civil Appeal No.6389 of 2025, decided on 6 May 2025.
(2010) 4 SCC 753
AIR 2014 Bom 42
(2000) 7 SCC 702
Civil Appeal No.1573 of 2023 decided on 19 July 2024.
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
9) Dr. Yusuf, the learned counsel appearing for Defendant Nos.4
and 5 would oppose the prayer of the Plaintiff for judgment on admission
submitting that the relief cannot be granted merely on oral request in
absence of filing of application seeking judgment under the provisions of
Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. That the facts and circumstances of the
case are peculiar, which do not warrant entertaining of oral request for
passing judgment on admission. That Plaintiff is the wife of Director of
Defendant No.1 and suit premises are shown to have been sold by
Director of Defendant No.1 to his own wife. That there is no record to
indicate that Plaintiff made any payment to Defendant No.1 towards
consideration for purchase of suit premises. That despite raising the
objection of absence of document evidencing payment by Plaintiff to
Defendant No.1, rejoinder filed by the Plaintiff is silent on this aspect and
rather than producing any document of payment, Plaintiff has skirted the
responsibility by craving leave of the Court to produce the same. That
therefore purchase of suit premises by Plaintiff itself is doubtful. That
Defendant No.5 was a bona fide purchaser for value. That he had
conducted due diligence in the form of search report, which did not
reflect existence of any Agreement relating to suit premises in favour of
the Plaintiff. That Defendant No.5 physically visited the suit premises
before purchasing the same belies Plaintiff 's contention that she possessed
the same from December 2020. That the flat was vacant and was shown
by Ms. Urvi Shah, authorised representative of Defendant No.1, who
induced Defendant No.5 into purchasing the same. That Advocate Purvi
Shah has sent unauthorised communications to the Plaintiff. That the said
advocate is associated with the Defendant No.1 and therefore no
statement made by Advocate Purvi Shah in her communications can
construe as admissions given by Defendant No.5. That she
unauthorisedly appeared before the Court on 14 January 2025 without
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
execution of Vakalatnama by Defendant No.5. He would submit that the
power of the Court to pass judgment on admission under Order XII Rule
6 of the Code is discretionary and it is not that in every case, the
discretion must be exercised. That judgment can be passed under
Order XII Rule 6 of the Code only in the event of there being a clear
admission. That the alleged admissions relied upon by the Plaintiff are
not sufficient for the purpose of passing of judgment under Order XII
Rule 6 of the Code. He would therefore pray for rejection of the
Plaintiff 's prayer for passing of judgment on admission.
10) Mr. Basu, the learned counsel appearing for Defendant No.6
would submit that Defendant No.6 is not a resident of the city and was
represented that Defendant No.5 was the owner of the suit premises.
Defendant No.6 had physically visited the suit premises before purchase
and Plaintiff was not found in possession. That Defendant No.6, at the
highest, can be accused of negligence and therefore this is not a case
involving any admission of title of Plaintiff by Defendant No.6. That
Defendant No.6 is a bonafide purchaser for value. That Defendant No.6
had reached out to Defendant No.5, who had promised to resolve the
dispute. He would submit that remedy of Defendant No.6 to pursue
action against Defendant No.5 be kept open.
11) Mr. Bhosle, the learned counsel appearing for Defendant No.1
submits that he supports the case of the Plaintiff. That Defendant No.1
had immediately filed police complaint on 1 October 2024 after acquiring
knowledge about the Agreements dated 31 July 2024 and 22 August 2024.
He would submit that the suit premises are sold by a ghost entity named
'Ultra Life Space Pvt. Limited' when in fact the actual co-promoter is
Ulltra Lifespace Private Limited. That there is no person by the name
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
Varun Ghanshyam Golaniya (Defendant No.3) connected to Defendant
No.1 and no resolution was passed in his favour for execution of any
document. That allotment letter dated 9 May 2024 is a forged document
not issued by Defendant No.1. That signature thereon is forged and postal
address, phone number and email address are fictitious. That Defendant
No.1 has taken all requisite actions in respect of forged transaction.
12) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration.
13) The building '81 Aureate' is constructed by Defendant Nos. 1 and
2 as joint developers. Plaintiff is the wife of director of Defendant No.1.
Plaintiff claims ownership of the suit premises by virtue of registered
Agreement for Sale dated 14 December 2020 executed by Defendant
Nos.1 and 2 in her favour upon payment of consideration of Rs.11.75
crores. The suit premises are sold once again to Defendant No.5 vide
registered Agreement dated 31 July 2024 by an entity which resembles the
name of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has denied execution of
Agreement dated 31 July 2024. According to the Plaintiff, 'Ultra Life
Space Pvt. Ltd' is a ghost entity which does not exist. Defendant No.1 is
'Ulltra Lifespace Pvt. Ltd.' who is co-promoter alongwith Defendant
No.2. The similarity in the names of Defendant No. 1 and the entity
which has executed Agreement for Sale dated 31 July 2024 is as under :-
Defendant No. 1 Entity executing Agreement in favour
Ulltra Lifespace Private Limited Ultra Life Space Pvt. Ltd.
14) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the promoters entitled to deal with
flats constructed in the building '81-Aureate'. Defendant No. 2 is not a
signatory to the Agreement dated 31 July 2024. The Agreement dated
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
31 July 2024 is shown to have been preceded by Allotment Letter dated
9 May 2024 which is not issued by Defendant No.1 or Defendant No.2 or
even by non-existing entity "Ultra Life Space Pvt. Ltd". It is issued on the
letterhead of '81-Aureate'. Defendant No.1 has denied that it has issued
the said Allotment Letter. By Allotment Letter dated 9 May 2024, suit
premises are shown to have been allotted in favour of Defendant No.4
(not in favour of Defendant No.5). Defendant No.4 is the wife of
Defendant No.5. The consideration amount also differs in the purported
Allotment Letter dated 9 May 2024 (Rs.3.5 crores) and purported
Agreement dated 31 July 2024 (Rs.8.78 crores). According to the Plaintiff,
the website and phone number indicated on the Letterhead on which the
Allotment Letter is issued are fictitious. The website
'www.bhandarigroup.com' is in respect of a Nepal based entity. The
consideration of Rs.8.78 crores has not been received by Defendant No.1
and in whose account exactly the alleged consideration paid in pursuance
of purported Agreement dated 31 July 2024 is credited is unknown as of
now. Within 22 days of alleged purchase of the suit premises, Defendant
No.5 has sold the suit premises to Defendant No.6 on 22 August 2024.
15) If the story pleaded in the plaint is to be believed, the case
would depict a shocking and plain case of fraud. A flat already sold to
Plaintiff by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 14 December 2020 (which
transaction is not disputed) is once again shown to have been allotted four
years later in favour of Defendant No. 4 and later shown to have been
sold in favour of Defendant No.5 on 31 July 2024 vide registered
instrument. The sale transaction in favour of Defendant No.5 is not by
the Promoters viz. Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Someone appears to have
used the name of non-existing entity of 'Ultra Life Space Pvt. Ltd.' which
resembles the name of Defendant No.1 (Ulltra Lifespace Pvt Ltd.) and
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
the transaction of sale of suit premises is shown to have been executed in
favour of Defendant No.5. It is not in dispute that the entity Ultra Life
Space Pvt. Ltd. does not exist. Defendant No.1 has denied any
connection with the said entity. Thus, if the contents of the plaint are
believed to be correct, the case involves sale of flat of the Plaintiff by a
non-existing entity in favour of Defendant No.5. Plaintiff alleges the
transaction to be fraudulent. In a situation it is difficult to digest,
Defendant No.5 has purportedly sold the suit premises within 22 days in
favour of Defendant No.6 on 22 August 2024. Plaintiff believes that even
the second sale transaction of 22 August 2024 is fraudulent.
16) Defendant Nos.1, 5 and 6 have filed their respective Affidavits-
in-Reply opposing the Interim Application (Lodg.) No. 377/2025. It is on
the basis of contents of the said Affidavits coupled with the contents of
some of the correspondence between the parties that the Plaintiff has
prayed for judgment on admission under the provisions of Order XII Rule
6 of the Code.
17) The first objection raised on behalf of Defendant No.5 is that
the judgment on admission cannot be passed in absence of a written
application being filed by the Plaintiff. It would be apposite to reproduce
the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code which reads thus :-
6. Judgment on admissions.--
(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or
otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of
the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion
and without waiting for the determination of any other question
between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may
think fit, having regard to such admissions.
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule ( 1) a decree
shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree
shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
18) Thus, under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, once admission of
facts is found to have been made, either in pleadings or otherwise, the
Court can make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit
having regard to such admissions and when a judgment is pronounced, a
decree needs to be drawn in accordance with the judgment. Perusal of the
provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code would indicate that the power
can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. Such power can be
exercised either on the application of a party or on its own motion.
Therefore, filing of application by party is not a sine qua non for exercise
of power under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. Court can exercise the
power even on its own motion. The provision thus invests a very wide
discretion in the Court to pass a judgment at any stage of the suit and
even on its own motion without there being any need for filing of any
application by a party.
19) The scope of power under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code and
the objective behind conferment of such power on the Court has been
dealt with by the Apex Court in its judgment in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co.
Ltd. Versus. United Bank of India6, in which it is held as under :-
12. As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say anything more than
what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be
amended. In the Objects and Reasons set out while amending the said Rule,
it is stated that "where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to en -
ter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The
object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least
to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defen-
(2000) 7 SCC 120
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
dant, the plaintiff is entitled". We should not unduly narrow down the
meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judg-
ment. Where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the for-
mer to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission
of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such ad-
mission to succeed.
(emphasis added)
20) In Karam Kapahi (supra), the Apex Court has discussed the
ratio of judgment in Uttam Singh Duggal. The Apex Court has also
approved the view taken by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Shikharchand Versus. Bari Bai7 wherein Justice G. P. Singh (as
His Lordship then was) in his concurring judgment has explained Rule 6 of
Order XII of the Code. Justice Singh considered similar provision in Rule
5 of Order 32 of the Supreme Court Rules (English) and English
judgment in Ellis Versus. Allen8 in which Justice Sarjant held that the Rule
applies wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it
is impossible for the party making it to succeed. The Apex Court has held
in Karam Kapahi (supra) in paras-37 to 48 as under :-
37. The principles behind Order 12 Rule 6 are to give the plaintiff a right
to speedy judgment. Under this Rule either party may get rid of so much
of the rival claims about "which there is no controversy" (see the dictum
of Lord Jessel, the Master of Rolls, in Thorp v. Holdsworth² in Chancery
Division at p. 640).
38. In this connection, it may be noted that Order 12 Rule 6 was
amended by the Amendment Act of 1976. Prior to amendment the Rule
read thus:
"6. Judgment on admissions-Any party may at any stage of a suit,
where admissions of fact have been made, either on the pleadings, or
otherwise, apply to the court for such judgment or order as upon
such admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the
determination of any other question between the parties; and the
court may upon such application make such order, or give such
judgment, as the court may think just."
AIR 1974 MP 75
(1914) 1 Ch. D. 904
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
39. In the 54th Law Commission Report, an amendment was suggested
to enable the court to give a judgment not only on the application of a
party but on its own motion. It is thus clear that the amendment was
brought about to further the ends of justice and give these provisions a
wider sweep by empowering the Judges to use it "ex debito justitiae", a
Latin term, meaning a debt of justice. In our opinion the thrust of the
amendment is that in an appropriate case, a party, on the admission of
the other party, can press for judgment, as a matter of legal right.
However, the court always retains its discretion in the matter of
pronouncing judgment.
40. If the provision of Order 12 Rule 1 is compared with Order 12 Rule
6, it becomes clear that the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 is wider
inasmuch as the provision of Order 12 Rule 1 is limited to
admission by "pleading or otherwise in writing" but in Order 12 Rule 6
the expression "or otherwise" is much wider in view of the words used
therein, namely: "admission of fact .... either in the pleading or
otherwise, whether orally or in writing".
41. Keeping the width of this provision (i.e. Order 12 Rule 6) in mind this
Court held that under this Rule admissions can be inferred from the facts
and circumstances of the case (see Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj
Mahajan, SCC at p. 285, para 8). Admissions in answer to interrogatories
are also covered under this Rule (see Mullas's Commentary on the Code,
16th Edn., Vol. II, p. 2177).
42. In Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India this
Court, while construing this provision, held that the Court should not
unduly narrow down its application as the object is to enable a party to
obtain speedy judgment.
43. In Uttam Singh Duggal case it was contended on behalf of the
appellant, Uttam Singh Duggal, that:
(a) Admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 should only be those which
are made in the pleadings.
(b) The admissions would in any case have to be read along with
the first proviso to Order 8 Rule 5(1) of the Code and the court
may call upon the party relying on such admission to prove its
case independently.
(c) The expression "either in pleadings or otherwise" should be
interpreted ejusdem generis. (See para 11, p. 126-27 of the
Report.)
Almost similar contentions have been raised on behalf of the Club. In
Uttam Singh those contentions were rejected and this Court opined no
effort should be made to narrow down the ambit of Order 12 Rule 6.
44. In Uttam Singh this Court made a distinction between a suit just
between the parties and a suit relating to the Specific Relief Act, 1963
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
where a declaration of status is given which not only binds the parties but
also binds generations. The Court held that such a declaration may be
given merely on admission (SCC para 16 at p. 128 of the Report). But in
a situation like the present one where the controversy is between the
parties on an admission of non-payment of rent, judgment can be
rendered on admission by the court.
45. Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code has been very lucidly discussed and
succinctly interpreted in a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Shikharchand v. Bari Bai. G.P. Singh, J. (as His
Lordship then was) in a concurring judgment explained the aforesaid
Rule, if we may say so, very authoritatively at p. 79 of the Report. His
Lordship held: (AIR para 19)
"... I will only add a few words of my own. Rule 6 of Order 12 of the
Code of Civil Procedure corresponds to Rule 5 of Order 32 of the
Supreme Court Rules (English), now Rule 3 of Order 27, and is
almost identically worded (see Annual Practice, 1965 Edn.,
Part I, p. 569). The Supreme Court Rule came up for consideration
in Ellis v. Allen. In that case a suit was filed for ejectment, mesne
profits and damages on the ground of breach of covenant against
sub-letting. Lessee's solicitors wrote to the plaintiff's solicitors in
which fact of breach of covenant was admitted and a case was
sought to be made out for relief against forfeiture. This letter was
used as an admission under Rule 5 and as there was no substance in
the plea of relief against forfeiture, the suit was decreed for ejectment
under that Rule. Sargant, J. rejected the argument that the Rule is
confined to admissions made in pleadings or under Rules 1 to 4 in
the same order (same as ours) and said:
'The Rule applies wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the
face of which it is impossible for the party making it to succeed.'
Rule 6 of Order 12, in my opinion, must bear the same construction
as was put upon the corresponding English rule by Sargant, J. The
words 'either on the pleadings or otherwise' in Rule 6 enable us not
only to see the admissions made in pleadings or under Rules 1 to 4 of
the same order but also admissions made elsewhere during the trial."
46. This Court expresses its approval of the aforesaid interpretation of
Order 12 Rule 6 by G.P. Singh, J. (as His Lordship then was). Mulla in
his commentary on the Code has also relied on the ratio in Shikharchand
for explaining these provisions.
47. Therefore, in the instant case even though statement made by the
Club in its petition under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act
does not come within the definition of the word "pleading" under Order
6 Rule 1 of the Code, but in Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code, the word
"pleading" has been suffixed by the expression "or otherwise". Therefore,
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
a wider interpretation of the word "pleading" is warranted in
understanding the implication of this Rule. Thus the stand of the Club in
its petition under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act can be
considered by the Court in pronouncing the judgment on admission
under Order 12 Rule 6 in view of clear words "pleading or otherwise"
used therein especially when that petition was in the suit filed by the
Trust.
48. However, the provision under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code is
enabling, discretionary and permissive and is neither mandatory nor it is
peremptory since the word "may" has been used. But in a given situation,
as in the instant case, the said provision can be applied in rendering the
judgment.
(emphasis added)
21) Thus, in Karam Kapahi the Apex Court after comparing the
provisions of Order XII Rule 6 prior to and after 1976 amendment and
report of the 54th Law Commission has held that the amendment has
been brought about to enable the court to give a judgment not only on the
application of a party but on its own motion. It is held that the
amendment was brought about to further the ends of justice and give
these provisions a wider sweep by empowering the Judges to use it
"ex debito justitiae", a Latin term, meaning a debt of justice. Therefore the
objection raised by Defendant No.5 about absence of written application
by the Plaintiff for pronouncement of the judgments on admission under
Order XII Rule 6 of the Code is baseless and is stated only to be rejected.
22) The scope of power of the Court under Order XII Rule 6 has
also been discussed recent judgment of the Apex Court in Saroj Salkan
(supra). The case involved issue as to whether the Court can also dismiss
the suit under the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. While
answering the issue in the affirmative, the Apex Court has made following
observations in the judgment :-
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
36. Having heard learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the
parties, this Court is of the view that the submission that the learned
Single Judge could have dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
alone and not under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and that too without any
application being filed by the Respondents, is untenable in law.
37. Recently, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajiv Ghosh vs. Satya
Naryan Jaiswal, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9975 of 2025 dated
07th April, 2025 has upheld the view of the Division Bench of the Delhi
High Court in ITDC Limited vs. Chander Pal Sood and Son, (2000) 84
DLT 337 (DB) that Order XII Rule 6 CPC gives a very wide discretion to
the Court to pass a judgment at any stage of the suit and that too on its
own motion i.e. without any application being filed by any party. In the
said judgment, it was also held that Order XII Rule 6 CPC, authorises the
Court to not only pass a decree regarding admitted claim, but also to
dismiss the suit. The relevant portion of the judgment in Rajiv Ghosh
(supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"36. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court very correctly laid
down the following interpretation of the provision of O. 12, R. 6,
CPC, in the decision of ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood and Son,
reported in (2000) 84 DLT 337 (DB): (2000 AIHC 1990):
"Order 12, R. 6 of Code gives a very wide discretion to
the Court. Under this rule the Court may at any stage of
the suit either on the application of any party or of its
own motion and without determination of any other
question between the parties can make such order giving
such judgment as it may think fit on the basis of
admission of a fact made in the pleadings or otherwise
whether orally or in writing."
xxx xxx xxx
39. This rule authorizes the court to enter a judgment where a claim
is admitted and to pass a decree on such admitted claim. This can be
done at any stage. [See: Uttam Singh (supra)]. Thus, a plaintiff may
move for judgment upon admission by the defendant in his written
statement at any stage of the suit although he has joined issue on the
defence." [See: Brown v. Pearson, (1882) 21 Ch D 716]. Likewise, a
defendant may apply for dismissal of the suit on the basis of
admission by the plaintiff in rejoinder."
23) Thus, the principal objective behind conferring power on the
Court to pass judgment on admission is to give right to the Plaintiff of
speedy judgment. A case involving apparent admission of claim of the
Plaintiff need not await lengthy trial and the Court can pronounce a
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
judgment based on admissions given in the pleadings or otherwise. The
provision confers a legal right on a party to press for judgment on
admission while recognising Court's own power to pronounce a judgment
on its own motion as well. No doubt, the power is discretionary as
provision of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code is enabling. It is not
mandatory that in every case where Plaintiff presses for pronouncement
of the judgment on admissions, the Court must do so. It all depends on
the facts and circumstances of each case as the provision uses the word
'may' and not 'shall'. At the same time, the provision is aimed at ensuring
that wherever there is a clear admission of facts where it becomes
impossible for a party making admission to succeed in the suit, the Court
need not await lengthy trial and proceed to pronounce the judgment based
on such admission. The test therefore is whether in the light of the
admissions so made by a Defendant, whether such a Defendant is likely
to succeed in the suit. This test laid down in English decision of
Ellis Versus. Allen (supra) as followed by Justice G. P. Singh in
Shikharchand Versus Bari Bai (supra) has been approved by the Supreme
Court in Karam Kapahi. Therefore if the Court comes to the conclusion
that admission given by a Defendant makes it impossible for him to
succeed in the suit, the proper course of action for the Court is to
pronounce judgment on admission by exercising power under Order XII
Rule 6 of the Code.
24) A Single Judge of this Court (S. G. Gupte, J., as he then was) in
SRL Ltd. (supra) has decided a case where admissions were made outside
the pleadings and Plaintiff had pressed for judgment on admission based
on pleadings contained in documents. The case involved admission of
Defendant's liability to repay the principal amount towards refund of
security deposit in the books of accounts and correspondence.
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
Apparently, there was no admission in pleadings. However there was
correspondence in which the liability to refund the security deposit was
admitted. The only defences raised were bar of limitation and claim for
adjustment of rent/license fees for three months' notice period. This
Court held that the defence of limitation was baseless and thereafter
proceeded to examine whether there was likelihood of Defendant
succeeding in the suit in the light of admissions so given in the
documents. The Court held in paras-8 to 13 as under :-
8. Effectively, therefore, the only defences arising on pleadings are (i) bar
of limitation and (ii) claim for adjustment of rent/licence fee for the three
months' notice period in the sum of Rs. 45,48,700/-. As against these,
there are admissions of the Defendant's liability to repay the principal
sum claimed towards the refund of security deposit of Rs. 1,58,54,200/-.
The issue of interest will be discussed separately.
9. These admissions as against the pleadings noted above, may now be
examined in the light of the law on the subject. In Uttam Singh Dugal
(supra), the Supreme Court analysed the provisions of Order XII Rule 6
in the following words:
"12. As to the object of the Order XII Rule 6, we need not say
anything more than what the Legislature itself has said when the
said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set
out while amending the said rule, it is stated that "where a claim is
admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the
plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the
Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to
the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the
defendant, the plaintiff is entitled." We should not unduly narrow
down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to
obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain
admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also
wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it
is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed.
13. The next contention canvassed is that the resolutions or
minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors, resolution passed
thereon and the letter sending the said resolution to the
respondent bank cannot amount to a pleading or come within the
scope of the Rule as such statements are not made in the course of
the pleadings or otherwise. When a statement is made to a party
and such statement is brought before the Court showing
admission of liability by an application filed under Order XII,
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
Rule 6 and the other side has sufficient opportunity to explain the
said admission and if such explanation is not accepted by the
Court, we do not think the trial court is helpless in refusing to pass
a decree. We have adverted to the basis of the claim and the
manner in which the trial court has dealt with the same. When the
trial judge states that the statement made in the proceedings of the
Board of Directors meeting and the letter sent as well as the
pleadings when read together, leads to unambiguous and clear
admission with only the extent to which the admission is made is
in dispute. And the Court had a duty to decide the same and grant
a decree. We think this approach is unexceptionable."
10. Our Court in the case Ultramatix Systems Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has also
considered what constitutes an admission within the meaning of Order
XII Rule 6. The Court in that case observed as follows:
"Admission is not defined under the provisions of the Act or
forthat matter Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 17 however,
sets out that 'An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or
contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to
any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the
persons, and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned.'
Under section 18, statements made by a party to the proceeding,
or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under
the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized
by him to make them, are admissions. In other words, statements
made by a party to the proceeding can be treated as admission by
the party. Section 21 sets out the admissions are relevant and may
be proved as against the person who makes them. It would,
therefore, be clear from a consideration of these provisions, that
an admission is a statement, oral or documentary made by any
person which suggest an inference as to a fact in issue or relevant
fact."
11. The Court accepted in Ultramatix case that statements contained in
the balance sheet and profit and loss account would constitute admission
of liability, observing as follows:
"We have no difficulty, therefore, in holding that the statement
contained in the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the
petitioner company would be an admission of its liability, unless
subsequent balance sheets were filed to show that either the amounts
have been paid or were not due and payable and/or any other
material was produced to hold otherwise. That exercise was not
done."
12. There is absolutely no substance in the defence on limitation. The
refund was due on 4 December 2009. The liability has since been
acknowledged on a numerous occasions as noted above, the last of such
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
acknowledegments being made in the Balance Sheet and account for the
year ending 31 March 2012. There is a part payment of the sum of Rs. 20
lacs admittedly on 26 May 2011. The suit is clearly within time.
13. Having regard to the law laid down as above, what needs to be seen is
whether on the basis of the admissions noted above, which are plain and
not disputed per se, the Plaintiff is entitled to succeed and whether in the
face of these admissions it is possible at all for the Defendant to nonsuit
the Plaintiff. It is, firstly, to be noted that most of these admissions are
post termination of the licence, and what is more important, after expiry
of the notice period. These admissions clearly support the Plaintiff's case
that the balance of security deposit claimed is arrived at after the
adjustment of licence fees due including the licence fee for the notice
period. The communication of 6 April 2010 clearly admits the
Defendant's liability to refund the sum of Rs. 1,78,54,200/- and in fact
sets out the payment schedule and particulars of cheques given towards
such payment. The cheques submitted along with the communication of
6 April 2010 were substituted with fresh cheques aggregating to Rs.
1,58,54,200/- (the liability owed by the Defendant having since been
reduced by part payment of Rs. 20 lakhs) with the communications of 27
August 2010 and 6 June 2011. These are further clear admissions of the
Defendant's liability towards the principal amount claimed in the suit.
The clear and unequivocal statements in the Balance Sheets and Profit &
Loss Accounts of the Defendant also amount to an admission of the
Plaintiff's claim towards the principal amount. No other material is
produced or relied upon by the Defendant to show that these amounts
have since been paid or the entires in the accounts have since been
rectified. The observations of our Court in the case of Ultramatix (supra)
quoted above squarely apply to these statements. In the face of all these
admissions, it is not possible for the Defendant to succeed in the suit.
(emphasis added)
25) Thus, apart from clear wordings of Order XII Rule 6 of the
Code that the admission can be in the 'pleadings' or 'otherwise', the
position is now clear that in absence of an admission in the pleading, the
Court can exercise power under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code and
pronounce judgment even on admissions given in correspondence and
documents.
26) Turning to the facts of the present case, there are two sets of
admissions on the part of Defendant Nos.1, 5 and 6. There are
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
admissions in correspondence, as well as admissions in the pleadings. I
first proceed to examine the admissions given in the correspondence.
Admissions given in the correspondence :
27) Plaintiff issued notice dated 1 October 2024 to the Defendants
calling them upon to cancel the impugned Agreements. It would be
apposite to consider the responses given by Defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 to
Plaintiff 's notice. Defendant No.1 in his letter dated 7 October 2024 as
stated as under :-
1. We are shocked to read the contents of your letter. The Flat no. 1304
along with 3 car parking spaces in building 81 Aureate, was sold to you
in 2020 and we have received the full consideration amount from you for
the same. Thereafter, we have not executed any documents in respect
your premises i.e. the said Flat No. 1304 and 3 car parking spaces.
2. As regards, the alleged Agreement dated 31st July, 2024 referred by you,
is concerned, neither have we executed any such Agreement nor do we
have any knowledge of the same. We have not issued any resolution
authorizing execution/registration of any such agreement. Moreover, we
are not aware of any "Varun Ghanshyam Golaniya" as he was neither
working with us nor we have given any authority to him to
execute any document.
3. We have also perused the resolution attached to this fraudulent document
and we confirm that the same is not given by us. Moreover, the signatures
of Mr. Jignesh Pravinchandra Shah and Mr. Tushar Ramniklal Shah are
forged. We also point out that the first word of the name of our company
is "Ulltra while the document is executed as on behalf of "Ultra".
4. Further, with regard to the Allotment letter dated 9th May, 2024
purportedly issued, we state that the same also appears to be forged and
fabricated as the signatory i.e. Mr. Shreyans Shah is not the Director of
our Company. Even the letterhead is not that of our Company. The
postal address, the email address and the phone number mentioned on
the letterhead is not that of the Company. We state that we have not
issued any allotment letter in respect of Flat no. 1304 after the same was
sold to your client.
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
5. We state that clearly these are forged and fabricated documents and the
same are null, void and illegal, and unenforceable under the law, that
have been made up and we are in the process of taking necessary steps.
28) Defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 had engaged a common Advocate
to respond to the Notice dated 1 October 2024 addressed on behalf of the
Plaintiff. The said Advocate gave Reply dated 3 October 2024 to the
Advocates of Plaintiff in which it was stated as under :-
"However my client shall examine the title of the mentioned property
and execute necessary documents if required to ramify any loss to your
clients or any other person and till than my clients shall not act upon the
registered documents."
29) The said common Advocate on behalf of Defendant Nos. 3 to
6 sent an email dated 17 November 2024 to the Advocate for the Plaintiff
stating as under :-
Hello,
On behalf of my clients Mr. Varun G Golaniya, Mr. Ketan J Patel,
Mr. Manesh D Madeka, Mr. Duggu K Patel, I state that my clients
have noticed some irregularities in the registered agreements and so
they have initiated the process of cancellation of agreements and
have made necessary applications before concerned authorities. As
soon as my clients get the cancellation deed, the same shall be shared
with you.
30) Thus, there are clear admissions in correspondence by
Defendant No.1 that he has not executed either the Letter of Allotment or
the Agreement dated 31 July 2024. There are further admissions given on
behalf of Defendant Nos.3 to 6 in the form of Advocate's letter dated
3 October 2024 and advocate's email dated 17 November 2024 admitting
irregularities in the registered Agreements. In the Advocate's reply dated
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
3 October 2024, Defendant Nos.3 to 6 showed willingness to examine
title of the suit property and to execute necessary documents to ramify the
loss caused to the Plaintiff and till then undertook not to rely upon the
registered documents. In the email dated 17 November 2024, the
Advocate for Defendant Nos.3 to 6 admitted irregularities in the
registered Agreements and informed the Plaintiff that Defendant Nos.3 to
6 had initiated process for cancellation of the Agreements and had made
necessary applications before the concerned authority. The advocate
undertook to share the Cancellation Deed with the Plaintiff immediately
after the same was executed. Thus, there is clear admissions on behalf of
Defendant Nos.3 to 6 that the back-to-back sale transactions purportedly
executed in favour of Defendant Nos.5 and 6 vide registered Agreements
dated 31 July 2024 and 22 August 2024 are irregular and they undertook
to cancel the same.
31) While it is orally sought to be suggested by Dr. Yusuf that the
advocate had acted without instructions in sending Reply dated 3 October
2024 and email dated 17 May 2024, in the Affidavits-in-Reply filed on
behalf of Defendant Nos.5 and 6, they have not made any attempt to
distance themselves from correspondence send by the said Advocate.
There is no contention in the Affidavits that either the Advocate was not
instructed to send reply or email or that the contents thereof are false.
Thus, there are clear admissions on the part of Defendant No.1 and
Defendant Nos.3 to 6 about invalidity of Allotment Letter dated
9 May 2024 and registered Agreements dated 31 July 2024
and 27 August 2024.
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
Admissions in Pleadings
32) In addition to admissions in correspondence, Defendant Nos.5
and 6 have also given clear admissions in their Affidavits-in-Reply.
33) In Affidavit-in-Reply dated 26 March 2025, Defendant No.5
has given following admissions :-
(xlii) I say that upon reviewing the Agreement again I have realized
that behind my back the said Accused persons have also added forged
documents of Slum Rehabilitation Authority in the said Agreement. I say
that I did not own any premises in the Jamat E Jamhooria SRA Building
No. G/7, however, two receipts on my name are added at page nos. 44
and 45 of the Agreement. Further, at page no. 46 an electric bill of BSES
is attached. This is also forged since I never owned any premises in the
first place therefore, it is not possible that the said bill can be a genuine
one. Furthermore, on page no. 72 at serial no. 36 my name is shown as
eligible in the Order passed by the Chief Officer, Maharashtra Housing &
Area Development Board, Mumbai. I say that it appears that this entry is
also forged since I have never owned any premises and thus there is no
question of being eligible under the SRA Scheme.
(xliii) I say that therefore, this is a very serious offence wherein the
Government Documents have been forged and huge sums of monies have
been usurped from me. I say that I have signed the said documents
innocently and without realizing or reading the said annexures and it is
only now when I have carefully gone through everything that I have
realized the magnitude of the fraud by the concerned persons. Therefore,
I am filing a Complaint with the Economic Offences Wing. Mumbai
Police and requesting for a thorough investigation in the matter.
34) Thus, Defendant No.5 has specifically admitted in his
Affidavit-in-Reply that the Agreement dated 31 July 2024 executed in his
favour is an outcome of fraud.
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
35) Defendant No.6, in his Affidavit-in-Reply dated 28 April 2025
has given following admissions :-
"If the Hon'ble Court permits, without entering into merits and the issues
as involved between the plaintiff and other Defendants, except the
answering Defendant, the answering Defendant is ready and willing to
cancel the Sale Deed which was executed by the Defendant no. 5 in favor
of this Defendant, subject to refund of the money paid by this Defendant
to the Defendant no. 5 as this Defendant is no longer interested in the
Suit Property."
36) Thus, Defendant No.6 has shown willingness to cancel the Sale
Deed dated 22 August 2024 executed in his favour subject to refund of
money paid by him to Defendant No.5. Defendant No.6 has made it clear
that he is no longer interested in the suit property. As a matter of fact,
during the course of oral submissions, Mr. Basu, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Defendant No.6 has fairly submitted that
Defendant No.6 shall pursue separate remedies against Defendant No.5
for refund of amount paid under the Agreement for Sale and that
Defendant No.6 shall not claim any right, title or interest in the suit
property.
37) Thus, there are clear admissions, both in the correspondence as
well as in the pleadings wherein the Defendants broadly agree that the
sale transaction effected vide purported Agreement dated 31 July 2024 is
an outcome of fraud. Defendant No.5 is attempting to play victim card
and feels cheated. Defendant No.6 has also taken a position that he has
been deceived into a fictitious and forged transaction. If the belief of
Defendant Nos.5 and 6 turns out to be correct, they would be entitled to
recover amounts allegedly paid by them from the concerned persons.
However, the moment Defendant No. 5 admits that the sale transaction
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
vide Agreement dated 31 July 2014 is fraud and the moment defendant
No.6 gives up his claim in respect of the title to the suit premises,
Plaintiff 's title in the suit premises needs to be restored based on the
admissions so given. It is sought to be contended by Dr. Yusuf that the
alleged admissions given on the part of Defendant No.5 are not clear and
unambiguous. He has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Karan
Kapoor Versus. Madhuri Kumar 9 in which it is held in paras-16, 18, 20 and
22 as under :-
16. Thus, legislative intent is clear by using the word 'may' and 'as it may
think fit' to the nature of admission. The said power is discretionary
which should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical
admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can
refuse to invoke the power of Order XII Rule 6. The said provision has
been brought with intent that if admission of facts raised by one side is
admitted by other, and the Court is satisfied to the nature of admission,
then the parties are not compelled for fullfledged trial and the judgment
and order can be directed without taking any evidence. Therefore, to save
the time and money of the Court and respective parties, the said
provision has been brought in the statute. As per above discussion, it is
clear that to pass a judgment on admission, the Court if thinks fit may
pass an order at any stage of the suit. In case the judgment is pronounced
by the Court a decree be drawn accordingly and parties to the case is not
required to go for trial.
18. On the issue of discretion of Court to pass judgment on admission, a
threeJudge Bench of this Court in the case of S.M. Asif v. Virendar
Kumar Bajaj - (2015) 9 SCC 287 made the legislative intent clear to use
the word 'may' which clearly stipulates that the power under Order XII
Rule 6 of CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of
right. In the said case, the suit for eviction was filed by the Respondent -
Landlord against the AppellantTenant. The relationship of tenancy was
admitted including the period of Lease Agreement. The Plaintiffs' claim
was resisted by the Defendant setting up a plea that the property in
question was agreed to be sold by an agreement and the advance of Rs.
82,50,000/ was paid. The Defendant in course of taking the defense
stoutly denied that Respondent/Plaintiff has continued to be the landlord
Civil Appeal No. 4645 of 2022 decided on 6 July 2022.
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
after entering into Agreement to Sell. The suit for specific performance
was also filed which of course was contested by the Plaintiff. In the said
case, this Court was of the view that deciding such issues requires
appreciation of evidence. Mere relationship of landlord and tenant
cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit under
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. Resultantly, this Court by setting aside the
judgment passed by the High Court remitted the matter back to the Trial
Court subject to deposit of the arrears of the rent and the compensation
for use of occupation of the suit premises. Such deposit was subject to
final outcome of the eviction as well as suit for specific performance.
20. Learned counsel for the Appellant has placed heavy reliance on a
judgment of R. Kanthimathi (supra). In the said case, this Court has
specified that any jural relationship between two persons could be created
through an agreement and similarly could be changed through an
agreement subject to the limitations under the law. However, it is urged
that the relationship of the Appellant has now been changed to purchaser
on signing the ATSI by landlord subsequent to lease agreement, therefore
the relationship of landlord and tenant extinguishes. Reliance has also
been placed on the judgment of Himani Alloys Limited (supra) and it has
been urged by Appellant that in case the admission is not of the amount
as alleged and not categoric and clear, the decree under Order XII Rule 6
cannot be directed. The case of Hari Steel (supra) has also been relied
upon to contend that the relief under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary
and the Court should not deny the valuable right of the Defendant to
contest the suit, meaning thereby, the discretion should be used only
when there is a clear, categorical and unconditional admission and such
right should not be exercised to deny valuable right of a Defendant to
contest the claim based on defense taken. Further, relying upon the
judgment of Shrimant Shanrao Suryavanshi (supra), it has been
contended that when a possession is with the Appellant by virtue of a
part performance of agreement to sell as prescribed under Section 53 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, he has right to defend or protect his
possession.
22. Be that as it may, the arguments advanced by both the sides, in our
view can be appreciated by the Trial Court by affording opportunity to
them to lead evidence. As per the pleadings, there may be admission to
the extent of execution of the Lease Agreement, rate of rent and monthly
payment but simultaneously the defense taken by the Defendant is also
based on ATS-I, II and III. In view of the contents of those agreements
and terms specified therein, the defense as taken by the
Appellant/Defendant is plausible or not is a matter of trial which may be
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
appreciated by the Court after granting pportunity to lead evidence by the
respective parties. There may be admission with respect to tenancy as per
lease agreements but the defense as taken is also required to be looked
into by the Court and there is need to decide justiciability of defense by
the full-fledged trial. In our view, for the purpose of Order XII Rule 6, the
said admission is not clear and categorical, so as to exercise a discretion
by the Court without dealing with the defense as taken by Defendant. As
we are conscious that any observation made by this Court may affect the
merit of either side, therefore, we are not recording any finding either on
the issue of tenancy or with respect to the defense as taken by the
Defendant. We are only inclined to say whether the judgment and decree
passed in exercise of the power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is based
on clear and categorical admission. In our view, the facts of the case in
hand and the judgment in S.M. Asif (supra) are altogether similar,
therefore, the ratio of the said judgment rightly applies to the present case.
Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, as
confirmed by the High Court, only on admission of fact without
considering the defense in exercise of power under Order XII Rule 6 of
CPC is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to
decide the suit as expeditiously as possible affording due opportunity to
the parties to record evidence that shall be appreciated by the Court on
merit.
38) It is contended by Dr. Yusuf that since the power conferred on
the Court under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary, the facts involved in
the present case do not warrant exercise of such discretionary power as
the alleged admissions are not clear. I am unable to agree. There are clear
and specific admissions on the part of Defendant No.5 that the sale
transaction vide purported Agreement dated 31 July 2024 is an outcome
of fraud. Defendant No.5 has already shown willingness to cancel the
said transaction vide email communication dated 17 November 2024.
There are admissions both in the correspondence, as well as, in the
pleadings on behalf of Defendant No.5. I am therefore unable to accept
Dr. Yusuf 's submission that the admissions given on the part of
Defendant No.5 are not clear so as not to exercise discretionary power
under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code.
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
39) Plaintiff has also contended that since there is no challenge to
Plaintiff 's registered Agreement for Sale, an admission to Plaintiff 's tittle
must be inferred. It is also contended that the Agreement registered at
prior point of time will alone be recognised to decide title ignoring the
subsequently registered documents. In my view, it is not necessary to go
into this issue. Since this Court is of the view that Plaintiff is entitled to
pronouncement of judgment on admissions, it is not necessary to go into
the issue of the effect of instrument registered at prior point of time,
which argument is pressed into service to supplement the claim for
pronouncement of the judgment on admissions. Therefore, it is not
necessary to discuss the ratio of the judgment in Dilboo (supra) and
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra (supra) relied upon by the Plaintiff.
40) The conspectus of the above discussion is that there are clear
and specific admissions on the part of the contesting Defendants on the
basis of which judgment can be pronounced in favour of the Plaintiff.
Defendant Nos.1, 5 and 6 have admitted the claim of Plaintiff. Defendant
Nos.5 and 6 are the real contesting Defendants in the Suit. Based on the
admissions that purported Agreement dated 31 July 2024 is not executed
by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and that same is an outcome of fraud coupled
with admission on the part of Defendant No.6 that he is no longer
interested in claiming title in respect of the suit premises, in my view, the
judgment can be pronounced granting declaration in favour of the
Plaintiff in terms of prayer clause 16(a)(i). The Plaintiff is further entitled
to declaration that Allotment Letter dated 9 May 2024, Agreement for
Sale dated 31 July 2024 and Sale Deed dated 22 August 2024 are ab initio
void warranting their cancellation. Based on admissions, Plaintiff is also
entitled to injunctive relief against Defendant Nos.3 to 8 from claiming
any right, title or interest in respect of the suit premises and restraining
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
them from alienating, creating third party rights or parting with
possession of the suit premises. However, Plaintiff is not entitled to the
relief of damages of Rs.10 crores as prayed for in prayer clause 16(a)(v) of
the plaint as there is no admission in respect of the claim for damages.
The Plaintiff therefore does not press for pronouncement of the judgment
qua prayer clause 16(a)(v).
41) It however needs to be clarified that since judgment is being
pronounced on admissions, the decree drawn in accordance thereto
would bind only parties to the Suit and Plaintiff cannot rely on the decree
to claim title in the suit against persons/entities who are not parties to the
Suit. Also, the decree shall not come in the way of Defendants seeking
their respective remedies against each other qua the suit premises.
42) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order :-
(i) Plaintiff is entitled to pronouncement of judgment on
admissions in accordance with provisions of Order XII Rule
6 of the Code.
(ii) Plaintiff 's suit is decreed and there shall be a decree in
Plaintiff 's favour in terms of prayer clauses 16 a.(i) to (iv), b.
and c. of the Plaint, which read thus :-
a. order, decree and declare that:
(i) the Plaintiff is sole and exclusive owner having absolute
and sole right, title and interest in the suit premises being Flat
No. 1304 admeasuring 205.20 sq mtrs on the 13th Floor
together with 4 car parking spaces, in the building known as
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
"81 Aureate" situated at KC Road, Near Rangsharada, Bandra
Reclamation, Bandra (W), Mumbai- 400 050 (more
particularly described at Exhibit 'A'), under the Agreement for
Sale dated 14th December 2020 duly registered with the Office
of the Sub Registrar of Assurances at Bandra bearing
registration no. BDR/1/11548/2020 (being Exhibit 'B' to the
Plaint);
(ii) the Allotment letter dated 9th May 2024 executed in
respect of the suit premises being Flat No. 1304 in the
building known as "81 Aureate" situated at KC Road, Near
Rangsharada, Bandra Reclamation, Bandra (W), Mumbai-
400 050 is illegal, void and of no legal effect whatsoever;
(iii) the Agreement for Sale dated 31st July 2024 registered
with Office of Joint Sub Registrar Andheri No. 6 (Mumbai
Sub urban Bandra) (Exhibit "E" to the Plaint) under
registration no. BDR17-13389-24 is illegal, void and of no
legal effect whatsoever and direct Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 to
deposit the same with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of
this Hon'ble Court and after it is so deposited, the same be
cancelled and under the order and directions of this Hon'ble
Court such cancellation be recorded in the public records on
such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper;
(iv) the Sale Deed dated 22nd August 2024 registered with
the Office of Sub Registrar Andheri -1 (Mumbai Sub urban
Bandra) under registration no.BDR1-11521-2024 (Exhibit "F"
to the Plaint) is unlawful, void and of no legal effect
whatsoever and direct Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 to deposit the
same with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this
Hon'ble Court and after it is so deposited, the same be
cancelled and under orders and directions of this Hon'ble
Court such cancellation be recorded in the public records on
such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper;
b. pass an order as and by of a permanent injunction restraining
Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 by themselves or their agents, servants,
assignees, successors and/or any other persons claiming through or
under them from in any manner (directly or indirectly) whatsoever
relying upon or acting in furtherance of any of the impugned
23 September 2025
Neeta Sawant SL-232-2025-FC
documents viz.,: (i) Allotment letter dated 9th May 2024 (Exhibit
"D" hereto); (ii) Agreement for Sale dated 31st July 2024 registered
with Office of Joint Sub Registrar Andheri No. 6 (Mumbai Sub
urban Bandra) under registration no. BDR17-13389-24 (Exhibit "E"
hereto); and (ii) Sale Deed dated 22nd August 2024 registered with
the Office of Sub Registrar Andheri - 1 (Mumbai Sub urban Bandra)
under registration no.BDR1-11521-2024 in respect of the suit
premises (Exhibit 'F' hereto) or otherwise holding themselves as
owners of or otherwise associated with the suit premises;
c. pass an order of permanent injunction restraining Defendant
Nos. 3 to 8 by themselves, their servants, agents or assigns or any
other person claiming by, through or under them, from in any
manner (directly or indirectly) dealing with, assigning, selling,
transferring, alienating and/or creating any third party rights in
respect of the suit premises, (more particularly described at Exhibit
'A').
(iii) Since the judgment is pronounced on admissions, the decree
drawn in accordance with thereto shall bind only parties to
the Suit.
(iv) The decree shall be drawn up accordingly.
(v) Since Plaintiff 's claim is admitted by the contesting
Defendants, there shall be no order as to costs.
Digitally [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2025.09.23
19:42:28
+0530
23 September 2025
