Amit Agarwal v. Tanuj Agarwal

1. This is an application under Order XV Rule 1 read with Order XII Rule 6 of CPC seeking preliminary decree declaring the plaintiff as ½ owner of the property located at D-421, Palam Extension, Harijan Basti, Sector 7, Dwarka - 110075 (“suit property”).

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the co-owner of the suit property along with defendant (his brother in law - wife’s brother) by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 18.06.2014 which was executed through General Power of Attorney (“GPA”) holder. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is registered as Registration No. 7,384 on Page Nos. 94 to 99 in Book No. 1 of Volume 7,744 at the office of Sub-Registrar IX, New Delhi and makes him the owner of one half of undivided share of the suit property. Further, the defendant is the owner of the other ½ undivided share in the suit property. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has been executed on the same day by the plaintiff in his own favour by virtue of a GPA.

3. In the written statement, the stand taken by the defendant is that the defendant has paid the entire consideration for purchase of the suit property and since the plaintiff was subjecting his own wife to extreme cruelty and asked her to demand money from her brothers, under extreme pressure the defendant was forced to purchase half of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Paras 3, 4 and 5 of the written statement are relevant and read as:

4. It is to be noted that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has been admitted by the defendant in the admission denial of documents.

5. The purpose of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is to avoid unnecessary trial and pass a decree once there are clear and unambiguous admissions on behalf of the defendant. The admissions as stated in the Order XII Rule 6 cannot be by any stretch of imagination mean that the defendant has to state “I hereby admit the averments in the plaint”. The clear and unequivocal statement/admissions have to be inferred and culled out from a meaningful reading of the pleadings. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vikrant Kapila v. Pankaja Panda, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1298 has observed as under:-

33. Admission in pleadings means a statement made by a party to the legal proceedings, whether oral, documentary, or contained in an electronic form, and the said statement suggests an inference with respect to a fact in issue between the parties or a relevant fact. It is axiomatic that to constitute an admission, the said statement must be clear, unequivocal and ought not to entertain a different view. Coming to admission in pleadings, these are averments made by a party in the pleading, viz., plaint, written statement, etc., in a pending proceeding of admitting the factual matrix presented by the other side. To constitute a valid admission in pleading, the said admission should be unequivocal, unconditional, and unambiguous, and the admission must be made with an intention to be bound by it. Admission must be valid without being proved by adducing evidence and enabling the opposite party to succeed without trial. A court, while pronouncing a judgment on admission, keeps in its perspective the requirements in Order VIII Rule 5, Order XII Rule 6 and Order XV Rules 1 & 2, CPC read with Sections 17, 58 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

6. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, (2022) 10 SCC 496 has observed as under:-

7. Admittedly, the defendant’s only stance in the written statement is that the consideration amount towards the purchase of the suit property has been paid by the defendant. However, the defendant has not filed any suit for declaration seeking cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or seeking declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is invalid/void document.

8. Ms. Rajkotia, learned counsel states that she has filed documents showing payments made to the plaintiff.

9. A perusal of the account details show that the account is registered in the name of M/s India Trading Corporation and not of the defendant.

10. Assuming the best case of the defendant that the defendant is able to show that he had paid the entire sale consideration for purchase of the suit property and consequently, ½ share of the property was benami in the hands of the plaintiff, even then this Court cannot set aside the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, in the absence of prayer/counter-claim to that effect. The only consequential relief that has to follow is to pass a preliminary decree.