Delhi High Court
Kamlesh Kumari & Anr vs Rohtas Goyal on 5 October, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P. No.46/2015
Decided on : 5th October, 2015
KAMLESH KUMARI & ANR ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ankit Jain & Ms. Bhoomja Verma,
Advocates.
Versus
ROHTAS GOYAL ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta & Mr. Vidit
Gupta, Advocates.
WITH
+ C.R.P. No.144/2015 & C.M. Nos.21606/2015, 21608/2015
KAMLESH KUMARI & ANR ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ankit Jain & Ms. Bhoomja Ver5ma,
Advocates.
Versus
STATE & ANR ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC for
GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
C.R.P. Nos.46/2015, 144/2015 Page 1 of 6
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. These are two civil revision petitions bearing Nos.46/2015 and
144/2015 filed against separate orders having been passed on 13.10.2014
in Suit No.154/2012 titled Kamlesh Kumari & Another vs. Rohtas Goel
and on 31.8.2015 in Suit No.18/2012 titled Kamlesh Kumari & Another
vs. State respectively. In both these suits, the application of the petitioner
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for passing a judgment on the basis of the
purported admission, was rejected by the trial court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the respondent, Rohtas Goel and have gone through
the impugned orders.
3. Before dealing with the submission of the learned counsel, it may
be pertinent here to give a brief background of the case. One Shyam
Sunder Goel, who was the husband of Kamlesh Kumari and father of
Pramod Goel had expired on 18.12.2011. Shyam Sunder Goel had
allegedly married to one Sandhya Devi Goel, who has also been made as
a party in a matter which was filed by Kamlesh Kumari and her son that
they be declared as sole legal heirs and entitled to the property of Shyam
Sunder Goel. Another suit was filed for being declared as sole persons
entitled to the assets. Sandhya Devi Goel is purported to have admitted
that she got married to Shyam Sunder Goel and thereafter was divorced
also though she was the second wife.
4. One Chandra Kala Goel, wife of Rajinder Prasad Goel (brother of
deceased Shyam Sunder Goel) had also filed some suit against Sandhya
Devi Goel wherein also the admissions are purported to have been made
by her that she had married to Shyam Sunder Goel but the marriage had
got dissolved. There are number of litigations pending between these
parties, which have been referred to in the impugned order. Suffice it
would be here to mention that the first suit bearing No.154/2012 was filed
by Kamlesh Kumari and her son Pramod Goel allegedly, the first wife
and son of Shyam Sunder Goel seeking a mandatory injunction against
Rohtas Goel that he should handover the items and the documents
contained in the locker belonging to Shyam Sunder Goel to them. It may
be pertinent here to mention that Rohtas Goel was declared by Shyam
Sunder Goel (since deceased) as the sole nominee to operate the locker.
It seems that the two parties, namely, Kamlesh Kumari and Pramod Goel
had gone to the bank to operate the locker, who had been informed that
the locker will be permitted to be operated by only the nominee, that is,
Rohtas Goel and that resulted in filing of the suit.
5. The second Suit No.18/2012 was filed by Kamlesh Kumari and
Pramod Goel seeking succession certificate from the court that they are
the only legal heirs of Shyam Sunder Goel.
6. During the pendency of the aforesaid suits, an application under
Order XII Rule 6 CPC was filed in both the suits seeking decree on the
basis of admission which was that Rohtas Goel be directed to operate the
locker, take out the documents of property as well as other valuables and
handover the same to Kamlesh Kumari and her son and similarly in the
suit for succession that they be declared as the sole legal heirs of the
movables of Shyam Sunder Goel.
7. Rohtas Goel had filed written statement and contested the claim by
saying that Shyam Sunder Goel had married to one Sandhya Devi Goel
and therefore, the petitioners were not the only legal heirs. In addition to
this, it was stated that Shyam Sunder Goel during his lifetime had
inserted an advertisement in the newspaper disowning Kamlesh Kumari
and Pramod Goel as the legal heirs to inherit the property of Shyam
Sunder Goel and therefore, the suit was being contested.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
Rohtas Goel is not denying the fact that he is only the nominee and thus
in the capacity of a trustee. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in the suits which have been filed by one Chandra Kala
Goel against Sandhya Devi Goel, she has admitted that she got married to
Shyam Sunder Goel as a second wife but has since been divorced,
therefore, she is not in the line of being a legal heir. It has also been
stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rohtas Goel in Suit
No.154/2012 had filed an application for impleadment of Sandhya Goel
as a party which was dismissed and thereafter a revision was taken to the
High Court which was also dismissed putting a seal of legality on the first
marriage and it was observed by the High Court that Kamlesh Kumari
was the legally wedded wife of Shyam Sunder Goel. On the basis of
these purported admissions by Rohtas Goel, Sandhya Devi Goel and
Chandra Kala Goel in the pleadings it is prayed that the learned trial court
has fallen into an error in not passing a decree on the basis of admission.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent has contested this and
contended that there is no clear cut admission on the part of Rohtas Goel
which would warrant passing of a decree on the basis of admission.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions and have gone through
the impugned order. I feel that there is nothing wrong, illegal or
improper or there is any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders in the
two cases rejecting the prayer of the present petitioner in passing a decree
on the basis of admission. The reasons for this are that Order XII Rule 6
CPC is very clear that passing of a decree on the basis of admission is not
a matter of right; it is a matter of discretion. This discretion is to be
exercised judiciously by the court only in cases where there is
unequivocal unambiguous and a clear admission. In the instant case, it
cannot be claimed by the petitioner that there is any unequivocal
unambiguous admission on the part of the Rohtas Goel to the effect that
Kamlesh Kumari and her son Pramod Goel are the only legal heirs though
he is admitting his status that of a nominee and therefore, cannot be better
than a trustee to hold the property belonging to Shyam Sunder Goel
(since deceased) as a trustee till the competent court rules as to who is the
legal successor to Shyam Sunder Goel. Therefore, I feel that the learned
trial judge, by a reasoned detailed and a correct order has rejected the
prayer of the petitioner in both the cases for passing a judgment on the
basis of the purported admission having been made by the respondent.
11. I, accordingly, feel that the present revision petitions are totally
misconceived and therefore, the same are dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
OCTOBER 05, 2015
'AA'
