Karnataka High Court
Sri K S Ramesh vs Sri K S Rangaswamy on 3 March, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1 RFA NO.1676/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1676 OF 2019 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI K. S. RAMESH
S/O. LATE K. R. SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT 131, 7TH 'B' MAIN
IV STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 079.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI K. S. RANGASWAMY
S/O. LATE K. R. SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
RESIDING AT 552, OM, 11TH CROSS
NORTH ANIKETANA ROAD
P AND T BLOCK, KUVEMPU NAGAR
MYSORE - 570 023.
2. DR. K. S. NAGESH
S/O. LATE K. R. SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.B-6, 81
ELITA PROMENADE, 7TH PHASE
J. P. NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 078.
3. SMT. ROOPA MURALI
W/O. LATE K. S. MURALI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
2 RFA NO.1676/2019
4. SMT. K. M. MEGHA
D/O. LATE K. S. MURALI
W/O. MR. DEEPAK
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
5. SMT. K. M. MEENA
D/O. LATE K. S. MURALI
W/O. MR. KHOUSIK
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.7, MANJULA DHAMA
2ND CROSS, MARUTHI EXTENSION
SRIRAMPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 021.
6. SRI V. G. VIKRAM
S/O. LATE V. R. GOPALASWAMY
AGED 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.B-015
STERLING PARK APARTMENTS
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD
SHANKARANAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 092.
7. SRI V. G. VINAY
S/O. LATE V. R. GOPALASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.434, 1ST FLOOR
10TH 'A' CROSS, 1ST BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 010.
8. SRI V. G. VIJAY
S/O. LATE V. R. GOPALASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT 434, 1ST FLOOR
10TH 'A' CROSS, 1ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. K. SAMPATH KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
SRI SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1 TO R-6;
SRI H. S. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 AND R-8)
3 RFA NO.1676/2019
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
11.6.2019 PASSED ON I.A. NO.6 IN O.S. NO.4955/2013 ON THE FILE
OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, CITY.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 13.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS
DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR J., and VENKATESH NAIK T. J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
and
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
The appeal in R.F.A.No.1676/2019 is preferred by the
appellant Shri K.S. Ramesh, challenging the judgment and
decree dated 11.06.2019 rendered by the XXXIX Addl. City Civil
Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No.4955/2013 and seeking to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019 allowing
I.A.No.6 filed by the respondents under Order XXII Rule 6 CPC
and consequently, to direct the trial Court to restore the suit.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is
defendant and respondent Nos.1 to 8 are plaintiff Nos.1 to 8.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as follows:-
Respondents had filed a suit for partition and separate
possession against the appellant seeking the relief of declaration
that the plaintiffs and defendant are joint family members and to
divide the property and alternatively, if the defendant is not
agreeing the suit properties be divided into five shares among
the children of K.R. Seetharamaiah and allot 1/5th share each.
As per the case of the plaintiffs, one K.R. Seetharamaiah was the
original propositus of the family, who married
Smt. K.S. Nagalaxmi as per Hindu customs and rituals. Out of
their wedlock, four sons and a daughter were born viz.,
K.S. Rangaswamy, K.S. Nagesh, V.G. Jayashree, K.S. Murali and
K.S. Ramesh. K.S. Murali died on 04.03.2013 leaving behind
plaintiff Nos.3 to 5. The daughter V.G. Jayashree died on
09.08.2011 leaving behind plaintiff Nos.6 to 8. During the
lifetime of K.R. Seetharamaiah, he acquired movable and
immovable properties out of his earnings in and around
Bengaluru and Mysuru. During the life time of K.R.
Seetharamaiah, he was allotted a site bearing No.434, 1st Block,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010 by the then C.I.T.B.(Now known
as BDA) measuring East- West 90 feet and South - North 45 ft
and accordingly, executed lease-cum-Sale deed in favour of
K.R. Seetharamaiah and thereafter, obtained absolute sale deed
from CITB, Bengaluru. Thereafter, K.R. Seetharamaiah sold a
portion of his property to an extent of East - West 30 feet,
North - South 45 feet on the eastern side of the property in
favour of one S.N. Murthy under registered Sale Deed dated
10.04.1974 and remaining extent measuring East - West 60 feet
and North- South 45 feet along with vacant land lying to the East
is the 'A' schedule suit property. In the year 1993,
K.R. Seethramaiah applied for allotment of site before Mysore
Urban Development Authority (for short 'MUDA') and on
consideration of the same, site bearing No.2089 measuring
30 x 40 feet ('B' schedule property) was allotted in favour of
K.R. Seetharamaiah and hence, an absolute sale deed was
executed in his favour by MUDA on 19.09.2003. During the life
time of K.R. Seetharamaiah, he executed a Will in respect of suit
schedule properties on 03.03.2007 bequeathing the same in
favour of his sons and daughter. Smt. K.S. Nagalaxmi,
W/o. K.R. Seetharamaiah died on 08.01.2013 and
K.R. Seetharamaiah died on account of old age on 07.02.2013,
leaving behind his children as his legal representatives. There
are no other ancestral properties belonging to the plaintiffs and
defendant, except the suit properties, which was acquired by
K.R. Seetharamaiah, out of his earnings. Thus, these properties
are self-acquired properties of K.R. Seetharamaiah. As per the
Will executed by K.R. Seetharamaiah, schedule 'B' property shall
devolve to the defendant and in 'A' Schedule property, the ground
floor shall be divided among four sons and 1st Floor portion was
given to the children of his daughter Smt. V.G. Jayashree. In
the Will, it is recited that in respect of ground floor, if the
property was not able to divide among the sons and legal
representatives of K.S. Murali, in which, eventuality, the property
may be sold and the sale proceeds shall be divided among the
children of K.R. Seetharamaiah. Therefore, the plaintiffs requested
the defendant to divide the property by metes and bounds.
However, the defendant denied to divide the property in terms of
the Will dated 03.03.2007. The plaintiffs have contended that
the plaintiffs and defendant are in joint possession of the
properties and there is no severance of the joint family status,
but the defendant taking advantage of the situation and also
being an Advocate, he is avoiding to make partition. Hence, the
plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the
suit properties.
4. Defendant appeared before the trial Court and filed his
written statement denying the plaint averments, however, he
admitted the fact that schedule properties are self-acquired
properties of K.R. Seetharamaiah-his father and execution of the
Will dated 03.03.2007, wherein, his father bequeathed the
schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant and
denied the remaining contentions/allegations made in the plaint.
The trial Court in view of the admissions made by the defendant,
in the written statement and based on I.A.No.6 filed by the
plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC
passed a judgment on admission. The operative portion of the
judgment is as under:-
ORDER
I.A.No.6 filed by the plaintiffs under Order
XII Rule 6 r/w/s 151 C.P.C. is hereby
allowed.
Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs is
hereby decreed.
The plaintiffs No.1 and 2, the L.Rs of
K.S.Murali i.e., plaintiffs No.3 to 5 and
defendant are jointly entitled to the ground
floor of schedule 'A' property, the L.Rs of
are entitled for first floor of schedule 'A'
property, the defendant alone is entitled to
schedule 'B' property.
No order as to costs.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial
Court on Admission, the defendant preferred this appeal
contending that the trial Court committed an error in allowing
I.A.No.6 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section
151 CPC. Infact, the trial Court ought to have dismissed I.A.No.6
and posted the case for further cross examination of PW.1 and
adjudicated the matter on merits. Further, the trial Court ought
not to have allowed the I.A.No.6 in view of the fact that the
plaintiffs do not base their claim in the suit on the basis of the
Will dated 03.03.2007 executed by K.R. Seetharamaiah.
However, they sought for joint partition dehors the Will dated
03.03.2007. The trial Court has not considered the reliefs
claimed by the plaintiffs, that it was not in terms/consonance
with the Will dated 03.03.2007. But dehors the Will, inasmuch
as, the plaintiffs claim share in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties,
which was in total disregard made in the Will. The defendant
never admitted the claim of the plaintiffs in entirety as sought
for by them, as plaintiffs never claimed relief in terms of the Will.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
records.
6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
appellant relied upon the following decisions:-
1. B.S. Viswanath v. CHANDIKABEN J. MEHTA
reported in ILR 1989 KAR 3245;
2. M/S. JEEVAN DIESELS AND ELECTRICALS
LTD., v. M/S. JASBIR SINGH CHADHA (HUF)
AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2010 SC 1890;
3. HIMANI ALLOYS LIMITED v. TATA STEEL
LIMITED reported in (2011) 15 SCC 273;
4. HARI STEEL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIES
LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. DALJIT SINGH AND
OTHERS reported in (2019) 20 SCC 425;
5. KARAN KAPOOR v. MADHURI KUMAR reported
in (2022) 10 SCR 496.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has taken
up the contention that soon after initiation of the proceedings,
the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written
statement denying the plaint averments and admitted the
registered Will and bequeath made therein and the defendant
not agreeing for the usage of ground floor portion of 'A' schedule
property by plaintiff Nos.1 to 5, by taking away the keys of the
main house. Further, as per Will in so far as the schedule 'B'
property is concerned, defendant K.S. Ramesh is the absolute
owner under the Will is not in dispute. On the contrary, the
defendant has filed his objections to the I.A. Considering the
admissions given by the defendant in the pleadings, the plaintiffs
filed I.A.No.6 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for passing judgment
on Admission. The Admission portion of the written statement of
defendant is as under:-
Para-5: "admitting the execution of the will dated
03/03/2007 which came to be presented by him for
registration on 07/03/2007 in respect of the suit Schedule
Property is hereby admitted as true and correct."
Para-7: "It is admitted that as per the will executed by
K.R.Seetharamiah the 'B' schedule property is
bequeathed in favour of the defendant. The ground floor
of the 'A' schedule property is bequeathed in favour of all
his 4 sons and the 1st floor of the 'A' schedule property is
bequeathed in favour of his only daughter
Smt.V.G.Jayashree.
Para-10: "even though the plaintiffs fully know that they
have to take the shares as ordained under the registered
will and not dehors it is accordance with the disposition
made in the will, all the beneficiaries of the will are bound
to take the respective share as conferred on them by late
K.R.Seetharamaiah."
Para-14: "The Defendants admits that in terms of the
registered will and bequeathal of properties made therein,
the beneficiaries are entitled to definite and certain share
of the "A" Schedule property and the "B" Schedule
property is bequeathed in favour of the defendant".
Therefore, considering the above admissions, the trial
Court by its order dated 11.06.2019 allowed I.A.No.6 and thus
passed the judgment on admission and declared that plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2, the legal representatives of K.R. Murali i.e., plaintiff
Nos.3 to 5 and the defendant are jointly entitled to the ground
floor of 'A' Schedule property, the legal representatives of
V.G. Jayashree i.e., plaintiff Nos.6 to 8 are entitled to first floor
of Schedule 'A' property and the defendant alone is entitled to
Schedule 'B' property. Hence, the judgment and decree under
challenge is just and proper which is based on proper
appreciation of facts and records, the same are reasonable and
non-arbitrary and no case has been made out by the defendant
for interference with the impugned judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court. On all these grounds, the respondents prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs relied on
the following decisions:-
1. RFA No.1589 of 2020(PAR) c/w RFA
No.1608/2020(DEC) dated 11.02.2025
(Sri. M.R. Raghuram V. Sri. M.R. Jayaram and
Others).
9. On the basis of the contentions taken by learned
counsel for the parties, the issues that would arise for our
consideration in the appeal is as under:-
1. Whether the trial Court's reliance on Order XII
Rule 6 CPC to dismiss the suit was legally
justified?
2. Whether the admissions by the
defendant/appellant herein in the written
statement constitute binding, unequivocal
admissions under the law?
10. In order to answer the issues, it is relevant to refer to
Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which empowers Court to deliver
judgments based on admissions only if, i) the admission is clear,
unequivocal, and unqualified; ii) No further evidence is required
to adjudicate the matter.
11. The appellant/defendant in the written statement
explicitly admitted the relationship of the parties to the litigation,
location of the property, nature of the properties, the Will
executed by his father, wherein, his father executed a Will in
favour of the plaintiffs and defendant in respect of 'A' and 'B'
schedule properties. Hence, considering the admission made by
the defendant in his written statement, the Court passed
impugned order.
12. As regards admission, in written statement it is
relevant to refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of UTTAM SINGH DUGGAL & CO. LTD. V. UNITED BANK
OF INDIA AND OTHERS, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 120) ::
(2000 SCC ONLINE SC 1134), wherein, at paragraph No.12, 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 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 the 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. Further, in this regard, it is relevant to refer to the
judgment in the case of TIRATH RAM SHAH CHARITABLE
TRUST & OTHERS VS. MRS. SUGHRA BI @ SUGHRA BEGUM
(DECD.) reported in (2015 SCC Online Del 13655), wherein,
at paragraph Nos.11 and 12, it is held as under:
"11. The object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is that
once there are categorical admissions made by a party,
then the litigation should not be permitted to linger on
unnecessarily and in appropriate cases, on an application
filed by a party under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, asking for a
decree on the basis of the said admissions, the Court
ought to exercise its discretion and bring an end to such
litigation by passing appropriate orders. The other
consideration, while passing a decree under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC, is to ensure that the judicial process is not
abused and a person entitled to relief, is granted such
relief without delaying the passing of a decree in his/her
favour, or making him/her go through the rigorous of a
trial.
12. In the case of Charanjit Lal Mehra Vs. Smt.
Kamal Saroj Mahajan, MANU/SC/0191/2005 : (2005) 11
SCC 279, the Supreme Court has held that an admission
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be inferred from the
facts and circumstances of the case and that order XII
Rule 6 CPC has been enacted to expedite trial and where
the Courts find that the suit can be disposed of on such
admissions, it should not hesitate from doing so. It is
also relevant to refer to the observations of a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Vijaya Myne Vs. Satya
Bhushan Kaura MANU/DE/9812/2006 : 142 (2007) DLT
483, where in the light of innumerable authorities on
Order XII Rule 6 CPC, it was held that admissions can be
constructive admissions and need not be specific or
expressive, which can be inferred from vague and
evasive denial in the written statement while answering
specific pleas in the plaint and further, that admissions
can even be inferred from the facts and circumstances of
a case."
14. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment in the case
of CHARANJIT LAL MEHRA AND OTHERS VS. KAMAL
SAROJ MAHAJAN AND ANOTHER reported in
(AIR 2005 SC 2765), wherein, at paragraph No.8, it is held as
under:
"8. Learned counsel made an alternative
submission that the revision petition was not
maintainable and the lease deed is not registered one
and therefore, it is not maintainable. None of these
objections were raised by the defendants before the
learned Single Judge. Even before the trial Court, the
non-registration of lease deed (which did not prescribe
any term) was not put in issue, it is only devised now to
some how defeat and delay the eviction and possession
of the premises to the landlady. In fact, Order XII Rule 6
C.P.C. is enacted for the purpose of and in order to
expedite the trials it there is any admission on behalf of
the defendants or an admission can be inferred from the
facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute;
then, in such a case in order to expedite and dispose of
the matter such admission can be acted upon....."
15. Further, in the case of "USHA RANI JAIN AND
OTHERS VS. NIRULAS CORNER HOUSE PVT. LTD. AND
OTHERS'' reported in 2005 SCC ONLINE DEL 843, wherein, at
paragraph No.18, it is held as under:
"18. The object of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is to
enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment, at least, to
the extent of the admissions of the defendant to which
relief the plaintiff is entitled to. The rule permits the
passing of the judgment at any stage without waiting for
determination of other questions. It is equally settled
that before a Court can act under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC,
the admission must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional
and unequivocal. Admissions in pleadings are either
actual or constructive. Actual admissions consist of facts
expressly admitted either in pleadings or in answer to
interrogatories."
16. The above decision was relied by the Delhi High Court
in the case of "SHIVRAJ YADAV AND OTHERS. VS. Dr. ARUN
NIRULA reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE DEL 2352"
17. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment in the case
of HIMANI ALLOYS LTD. VS. TATA STEEL LTD.,
reported in (2011) 15 SCC 273), wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is
discretionary, which should be exercised only when the
admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional. The Apex
Court, however, held that such a judgment under Order XII Rule
6 CPC could be based on admissions contained in documents
other than pleadings, and in fact, observed that a judgment
could be given, even on the basis of an admission contained in
the minutes of a meeting. Paragraph No.3 of the said decision
read as under:
3. Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code provides that:
"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."
18. Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with
admissions and their admissibility. It states that,
"Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the
person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but
they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes
them, except in the following cases--"
1. When it is of such a nature that, if the person making it
were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons
under Section 32.
2. When it consists of a statement of the existence of any
state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or
about the time when such state of mind or body existed,
and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood
improbable.
3. If it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.
19. On a careful consideration of the above case laws and
the definition of 'admission' under Section 21 of the Indian
Evidence Act, it is found that the Appellant's admission in the
written statement clearly falls within the scope of Section 21 as
an admission, in the interest of the Appellant himself.
20. As per Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act itself,
these admissions are relevant and can be used against the
Appellant, especially as they were made in judicial proceedings
and are accompanied by corroborative evidence (i.e., the written
statement).
21. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of THIRU JOHN VS.
RETURNING OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in
(AIR 1977 SC 1724), wherein, at paragraph Nos.15, it is held
as under:
"15. It is well settled that, a party's admission as
defined in Sections 17 to 20 fulfilling the requirements of
Section 21 of the Evidence Act, is substantive evidence
proprio vigore. An admission, if clearly and unequivocally
made, is the best evidence against the party making it
and though not conclusive, shifts the onus on to the
maker on the principle that "what a party himself admits
to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so and
until the presumption was rebutted the fact admitted
must be taken to be established".
22. We find justification in the submission of the learned
counsel for the respondents that the trial Court has rightly
applied Order XII Rule 6 CPC, as admissions which resolved the
core issues of ownership and partition between the Appellant and
Respondents. The further trial would have been redundant and
against the judicial economy, as the Appellant's admissions
eliminated the need for evidence.
23. In the case of ELUMALAI ALIAS VENKATESAN AND
ANOTHER VS. M. KAMALA AND OTHERS reported in
(2023 SCC ONLINE SC 84), wherein, at paragraph No.27, it is
held as under:
"27.......The effect of the estoppel cannot be
warded off by persons claiming through the person
whose conduct has generated the estoppel. We also find
no merit at all in the attempt at drawing a distinction
based on religion. The principle of estoppel applies
without such distinction."
24. In the case of SETH PARMA NAND VS. CHAMPA LAL
AND OTHERS reported in (AIR 1956 ALL 225), wherein, at
paragraph No.11, it is held as under:
"11. Estoppel by deed is based on the principle
that when a person has entered into a solemn
engagement by a deed under his hand and seal as to
certain facts, he shall not be permitted to deny any
matter which he has so asserted. It is a rule of evidence
according to which certain evidence is taken to be of so
high and conclusive nature as to admit of no
contradictory proof (Halsbury's Laws of England,
Hailsham Edition, Vol. 13, Para. 513, page 456)."
25. For the purpose of consideration of the grounds urged
in the appeal, it is relevant to refer to the object and scope of
Order XII Rule 6 CPC. It enables either party at any stage of the
suit to move for judgment on the admissions which have been
made by the other side. However, the rule is permissive which
does not preclude a party to the proceedings, but a judgment on
admission is not a matter of right, but it is in the discretion of
the Court. The Court must be satisfied that the admissions
made are clearly unambiguous, definite and unequivocal.
Therefore, for exercise of discretion by the Court under Order XII
Rule 6 of the CPC, the admission must be unequivocal. Where
the plaintiff relied on some documents to assert admission by
the defendant, but the said documents were of the character of
disputed documents, it was held that such disputed documents
cannot form the basis of admission for the purpose of decree.
Whereas in order to invoke the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC,
it is well-established that the exercise of discretion of the Court
in passing a decree or judgment on admission, the Court has to
satisfy its judicial conscience. In a suit for partition, where, in
spite of admission of relationship between the parties, there
were different issues, which were yet to be decided, it was held
that the trial Court rightly exercised discretion in an application
filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. A decree can be passed
under this rule on the basis of an admission, whether it is
contained in the pleadings or elsewhere. Such an admission
may be in writing or may be oral. No particular form of
admission is necessary. Keeping in view the reasons stated in
their application filed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and also
keeping in view the pleadings made in the suit initiated by the
plaintiffs against the defendant, the same has to be considered
by exercising discretionary powers. Order XII Rule 6 CPC is an
enabling provision to both the parties to the proceeding and the
object of the rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy
judgment, at least to the extent of admission of the parties to
the proceeding.
26. On perusal of the pleadings of both the parties and
documents produced, it appears that suit schedule properties are
self-acquired properties of Late K.R. Seetharamaiah. The
plaintiffs and defendant have admitted the fact that during the
life time of K.R. Seetharamaiah, he executed registered Will
dated 03.03.2007. The defendant in his written statement at
para Nos. 5, 7, 10 and 14 categorically admitted that during the
life time of K.R. Seetharamaiah, he has executed the Will. As per
the contents of Will, the ground floor of Schedule 'A' property
shall go to the sons of Testator viz., Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, K.S.
Murali (father of plaintiff Nos.4 and 5) and husband of plaintiff
No.3, and defendant-appellant. So also, the first floor of
Schedule 'A' property shall go to the share of daughter of
Testator by name Smt. V.G. Jayashree, who is none other than
mother of plaintiff Nos.6 to 8 and suit schedule 'B' property shall
go to the defendant exclusively. Therefore, the trial Court
considering the admissions made by the defendant pronounced
the judgment on Admission.
27. From the perusal of pleadings and documents, the
defendant has made clear and unequivocal admission in his
written statement regarding Will executed by his father dated
03.03.2007. Under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, once
fact admitted need not be proved, thus, admission can be
regarded as substantive evidence, on which, decree can be
passed. No-doubt, the case was based on the Will and the
beneficiary under the Will shall prove its contents as required
under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act. Whereas, the appellant
being the defendant, admitted execution of Will by his father and
under the Will, the defendant is the major beneficiary, thus,
there is no question of exclusion of defendant in partition or
there is denial of share in the suit schedule properties to the
defendant. In this case, though the plaintiffs have received
lesser shares in the schedule property, however, they have not
made any grievance. But, the defendant though got more share
than the plaintiffs, has preferred this appeal without there being
any valid grounds. In this case, the execution of Will,
relationship of the parties, entitlement of shares are admitted by
the defendant.
28. Order XII Rule 6 CPC relates to judgments on
admission where the admission of facts have been made either
on pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court
may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of a 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. A plain reading of Order XII Rule 6 CPC makes it
abundantly clear that it is open to the Court to pass a judgment
on admissions in the pleadings or otherwise. The said provision
clearly indicates that it is open to the Court to pronounce
judgment on statement made by the parties and documents on
record can be taken note of dehors the pleadings. Admission
may be made either specific or constructively. Further,
Sections 17 to 20 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also has been
referred by the learned Trial Judge in the said judgment.
29. The admissions by the Appellant/defendant in the
written statement constituted a deliberate and conscious
acknowledgement of facts, binding on him under Section 115 of
the Evidence Act and Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The admissions
preclude the need for further evidence or trial, ensuring judicial
efficiency. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial
Court's judgment aligns with established legal principles and the
dismissal of the appeal does not affect the rights of defendant to
assert his claims independently. Hence, the issues framed above
are answered in the affirmative and the dismissal of
O.S. No.4955/2013 by the trial Court under Order XII Rule 6
CPC requires to upheld for the reasons that, i) the admissions by
the defendant/appellant in the written statement are
binding, clear, and unequivocal; ii) the application of Order XII
Rule 6 CPC is justified, as further trial would have been
redundant and iii) The trial Court's judgment aligns with
established legal precedents and ensures procedural fairness and
judicial economy.
30. In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, it is
deemed appropriate to state that there is no illegality or infirmity
committed by the trial Court in rendering the judgment and
decree dated 11.06.2019.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The appeal filed by the appellant/defendant is
hereby dismissed.
2. The judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019 passed
by the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S. No.4955/2013 is
hereby upheld.
3. No Order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
MN/-
