Mahesh Khandelwal v. Kuljeet Singh

1. Plaintiff has filed the present application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, thereby seeking directions to pass a decree in terms of the prayer (1) of the plaint in his favour and against the defendant.

2. Briefly, plaintiff has instituted the present suit for possession and recovery of mesne profit/damages. It is claimed that plaintiff’s mother Late Smt. Ram Dai Khandelwal was the recorded owner of the property bearing No.39, Sadhna Enclave, New Delhi (hereafter, ‘the suit property’) by virtue of Perpetual Lease Deed dated 09.03.1996. During her lifetime, she executed her last Will and Testament dated 18.07.1989 thereby bequeathing the suit property equally between her two sons namely, the plaintiff and Shri Suresh Chand Khandelwal. The competent Court also granted probate in favour of the plaintiff and Suresh Chand Khandelwal vide order dated on 22.07.2014 passed in Probate Case No.7/2010. It is averred that Suresh Chand Khandelwal died intestate on 01.08.1992 leaving behind his wife and three daughters as the only legal heirs. The three daughters of Late Suresh Chand Khandelwal relinquished their respective shares in favour of their mother Smt. Sneh Lata Khandelwal by way of a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 13.05.2015. Later, under a Family Settlement Deed dated 18.05.2015, Smt. Sneh Lata Khandelwal surrendered her share in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The case set up by the plaintiff is that his mother Late Smt. Ram Dai Khandelwal during her lifetime entered into a collaboration agreement dated 19.08.1970 with the defendant, for constructing a building on the suit property. As per the Understanding, the defendant undertook to pay Sadhna Cooperative House Building Society Limited the balance amount, as may be required to be paid, for the allotment of the suit property. In this regard, he deposited a sum of Rs. 23,000/- as security with the plaintiff’s mother. That as per the Collaboration Agreement, on receipt of intimation of grant of the Completion Certificate, plaintiff’s mother was required to pay defendant the cost of construction alongwith 20% of the cost of construction as profit, as well as refund the security amount. The Collaboration Agreement further provided that till the time Completion Certificate was obtained, the plaintiff’s mother was not required to pay the aforesaid amounts, and at the same time, the defendant would have the right to remain in occupation and actual possession of the suit property. The defendant never informed the plaintiff’s mother about obtaining the Completion Certificate and thus continued in possession.

4. Plaintiff has further claimed that he came to know about the completion of construction only when a notice was received from DDA in the proceedings that were initiated by the defendant, for mutation of the suit property in his own name.

5. Mr. Bindra, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff submits that under the Collaboration Agreement, the defendant was only permitted to remain in possession and occupation of the suit property till the time he communicated the obtaining of the Completion Certificate. He further submits that the plaintiff is ready and willing to honour his obligations under the said Collaboration Agreement. Reference has also been made to the order dated 20.12.2019 wherein it was prima facie opined that holding the pleas of lawful title and adverse possession are antithetical to each other. Defendant, having himself relied on the Collaboration Agreement, has admitted to the plaintiff’s ownership, and is thus required to hand over possession of the suit property.

6. Per contra, on behalf of the defendant, it has been contended that the defendant has not admitted to the plaintiff’s claim of ownership. Rather, it is the case of the defendant that the suit property was in fact, sold by plaintiff’s mother to the defendant, and the entire sale transaction was effected in this particular manner to save the parties from obtaining tedious government permissions. It is submitted that while plaintiff’s mother in consideration of the sublease had paid Rs.18,765.50 towards premium, defendant was made to pay Rs.23,000/- as the security. It is also submitted that in addition to the Collaboration Agreement, plaintiff’s mother also executed a registered Will dated 19.08.1970 in favour of the defendant. An irrevocable General Power of Attorney (regd.) was also executed in favour of one Satya Vir Malik. Defendant has called into question the plaintiff’s conduct in filing the suit after nearly 42 years (the earlier suit for possession and mandatory injunction having been filed before learned ADJ, Saket Court, New Delhi, was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC)

7. Order XII CPC relates to ‘Admissions’. Rule 6 provides that if a party has made admissions in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit pass a judgment on admission without first determining any other question between the parties. The Court can pass such a judgment either on the application of any party or of its own motion as well. The condition precedent for passing such a judgment is that the admissions must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. Further the judgment on admission is not a matter of right but is rather, discretion vested with the Court which, of course, is to be exercised judicially. The object of Rule 6 is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment atleast to the extent of relief to which, according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled (Ref: Uttam Singh Duggal v. United Bank of India And Others reported as (2000) 7 SCC 120).

8. Whether or not there is a clear, categorical and unequivocal admission by the defendant of the plaintiff’s claims is essentially a question of fact and the question needs to be decided on the facts of each case. The admissions can also be constructive admission that can be incurred from the vague and evasive denial in the written statement (Ref: Rajeev Tandon and Anr. v. Rashmi Tandon reported as 2019 SCC OnLine Delhi 7336).

9. In State Bank of India vs Midland Industries & Ors. reported as AIR 1988 Del 153, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows:- (6) Having noted these facts of this case it would be appropriate to refer to Order 12 rule 6 Civil Procedure Code. which lays down as under:- "6(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. (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. There is no doubt that Rule 6 of Order 12 has been couched in a very wide language. However, before a court can act under Rule 6, admission must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. Furthermore a judgment on admission by the defendant under Order 12 rule 6 Civil Procedure Code is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the court, no doubt such discretion has to be judicially exercised. If a case involves questions which cannot be conveniently disposed of or a motion under this rule the court is free to refuse exercising discretion in favour of the party invoking it. It is not in each case where Order 12 rule 6 Civil Procedure Code is invoked that the court would be obliged to pass a decree which case would depend upon its own peculiar facts. Where the defendants have raised objections which go to the very root of the case, it would not be proper to exercise this discretion and pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The purpose of Order 12 rule 6 Civil Procedure Code is to avoid waiting by the plaintiff for part of the decree when there is a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional admission of the defendant in respect of the claim of the defendant. The rule only secures that if there is no dispute between the parties, and if there is on the pleadings or otherwise such an admission as to make it plain that the plaintiff is entitled to a particular order or judgment he should be able to obtain it at once to the extent of admission. But the rule is not intended to apply where there are serious questions of law to be asked and determined. Likewise where specific issues have been raised in spite of admission on the part of the defendants the plaintiff would be bound to lead evidence on those issues and prove the same before he becomes entitled to decree and the plaintiff in that event cannot have a decree by virtue of provision of Order 12 rule 6 Civil Procedure Code without proving those issues.”

10. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is discernible that both the parties have set up rival claims. Plaintiff has claimed that the suit property was bequeathed by his mother to him as well as his brother namely, late Shri Suresh Chand Khandelwal by virtue of a Will dated 18.07.1989.

11. A perusal of the aforesaid Will dated 18.07.1989 would show that the suit property is not mentioned as one of the properties possessed by the Late Smt. Ram Dai Khandelwal. Being confronted with the contention, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the suit property stood included by virtue of the residual clause in the Will. The clause reads as under:- “… In respect of assets not mentioned above and that I may possess at the time of my death, I bequeath the same to both my sons Shri Suresh Chand and Shri Mahesh Chand in equal shares.”

12. Both the parties have set up their respective cases on the basis of Collaboration Agreement. As noted above, defendant has also placed on record a copy of the registered Will dated 19.08.2017, stated to be executed by late Smt. Ram Dai Khandelwal in his favour.

13. Plaintiff’s submissions that by way of the aforesaid residuary clause, his mother intended to bequeath the suit property in favour of him and his brother Shri Suresh Chand Khandelwal, in the prima facie opinion of the Court, would need to be established by plaintiff in trial.

14. In view of the aforesaid, it thus cannot be said that the defendant has made admissions warranting decreeing of suit in favour of the plaintiff. Resultantly, the application is dismissed.

15. Needless to state that the observations made hereinabove are for the purpose of disposing of the captioned application and shall not have any bearing on the final outcome of the suit. List before Court on 20.10.2023.