Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Suit Can Be Decreed On Admission Only If It's Clear, Unequivocal And Unconditional: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that unless an admission is clear, categorical and unconditional, a judgment on admission cannot be sustained under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court said that a mere referencing of inconsistencies in the statements may not amount to an admission when there exist disputed factual circumstances, which require adjudication in a full-fledged trial."The term “admission” has been defined under Sections 17 and 18 of the Evidence Act, 1872, an admission is a statement which suggests any inference as to a fact in issue or relevant fact and is made by a party to the proceeding or by a person authorised by such party however every statement made by a party cannot automatically result in a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. Thus, the admission must be categorical, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal."A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard an appeal arising from a Hindu family dispute concerning the distribution of sale proceeds from a jointly owned agricultural property. The property was sold for approximately ₹15.31 crore, and each co-owner was entitled to a 1/6th share, amounting to approximately ₹2.55 crore. In his written statement, defendant No. 3 admitted that under a family settlement, each party had received ₹3 crore from the sale proceeds. Relying on this admission, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC seeking a decree of recovery of ₹44,79,167/- against defendant No. 3. It was contended that since defendant No. 3 had admitted to receiving ₹3 crore, ₹44,79,167/- in excess of his legitimate 1/6th share of ₹2,55,20,833/-, he was liable to refund the excess amount.The District Court dismissed the Respondent application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC holding that the controversy required trial and that the issues already framed could be adjudicated only upon appreciation of evidence. Aggrieved by the District Court's order, the Respondent filed a civil revision before the Delhi High Court. The High Court allowed the revision petition and decreed the suit against defendant No.3 for recovery of Rs.44,79,167/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit. Against the High Court's decision, the legal heirs of the defendant no.3. moved to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court wrongly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC by substituting its own interpretation, and exceeded its jurisdiction to direct the refund of the disputed amount, despite the existence of disputed questions of fact, which required an adjudication after appreciation of evidence. Further, the appellants contended that because of a lack of clear admission that the defendant no.3 holds any liability towards the Respondent, it was improper to presume such a non-categorical admission of liability towards the Respondent. Finding force in the Appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Pancholi found the defendant no.3's statement of receiving Rs. 3 crores by each co-owner to be unconvincing to deliver a judgment on an admission. The Court noted that since the defendant no.3 had not anywhere admitted his liability towards the Respondent, hence, the High Court erred in isolating a single portion of the written statement and construing the same as an unequivocal admission of liability. “It is a well settled law that a judgment on admission is an exception to the ordinary rule that civil disputes must be adjudicated after parties are afforded full opportunity to lead evidence because a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC results in denial of a trial and thus the provision must be applied with caution and only in cases where the admission is absolutely clear, categorical and unconditional.”, the Court observed. “…it is well settled that pleadings cannot be read in a piecemeal manner and must be construed holistically.”, the court said, upon finding that the High Court erred in isolating the defendant no.3 written statement. Further, the Court faulted the High Court's interference at the revisional stage by substituting its own interpretation to the defendant no.3' written statement. Noting that a revisional jurisdiction needs to be exercised when there exists a jurisdictional error or a material irregularity is demonstrated, the Court found the High Court's decision to substitute its own interpretation was improper and excessive, as the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited, and could not be exercised merely because another view was possible. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned High Court order was set aside, thereby restoring the District Court's order to adjudicate the issue at trial. Cause Title: PUSHPA & ORS. versus DAYAWATI & ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 610Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Rakesh Kumar-i, AOR Mr. Harshit Shrama, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Kumar...

Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Suit Can Be Decreed On Admission Only If It's Clear, Unequivocal And Unconditional: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

The Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided through judgment on admission.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Suit Can Be Decreed On Admission Only If It's Clear, Unequivocal And Unconditional: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

The Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided through judgment on admission.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers