Delhi District Court
K K Arora vs Ashok Puri on 10 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. PANKAJ SHARMA:
DISTRICT JUDGE-02 & WAQF TRIBUNAL :
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
CS No. 463/2018
IN THE MATTER OF :
K.K. Arora
S/o Sh. Lila Kishan,
R/o 68, Main Street North Suite 229,
Markham, Ontario-L3P ON5,
Canada
Through Power of Attorney
Sunil Jasuja
S/o Late Sh. A.S. Jasuja
R/o D-4, Commercial Complex,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. ....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Ashok Puri (deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Devraj Puri,
R/o D-1/10, Vasant Vihar,
South West Delhi,
New Delhi-110057
2. Akshay Puri
S/o Late Sh. Ashok Puri,
R/o D-1/10, Vasant Vihar,
South West Delhi,
New Delhi-110057
3. Anuj Puri
S/o Late Sh. Ashok Puri,
CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 1 / 21
K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.10
16:56:03
+0530
R/o D-1/10, Vasant Vihar,
South West Delhi,
New Delhi-110057 .....Defendants
10.02.2026
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application filed under Section 151 CPC on behalf of plaintiff seeking directions to the defendant to deposit unauthorized use and occupation charges.
2. Before dealing with the said application, it would be important to quote the averments/brief facts made in the plaint:-
The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking recovery of possession of the basement and ground floor of the residential property bearing No. D-1/10, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi admeasuring 605 square yards (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") along with mesne profits. The Plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property and is a senior citizen of Canada and a person of Indian Origin. Around the year 2000-2001, the Plaintiff, out of love and affection for his sister Late Mrs. Promila Puri, permitted her to live in the suit property along with her husband Ashok Puri (Deceased) (Defendant No. 1) and two sons Akshay Puri (Defendant No. 2) and Anuj Puri (Defendant No.3) (who moved to and resides in Hong Kong since long). The defendants occupied the suit property gratis i.e., without paying any rent or fees or charges to the Plaintiff and have no right or title over the suit property. Plaintiff's sister expired CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 2 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.10 16:56:07 +0530 on 08.04.2013, and her husband (Defendant No. 1) and son (Defendant No. 2) continued to stay in the suit property gratis. The Plaintiff, via an email dated 10.12.2017, proposed 03 options concerning the suit property and requested defendant No. 1 to make a decision by 15.03.2018. However, defendant No. 1 failed to respond within the stipulated time. Consequently, by letter dated 08.03.2018, Plaintiff withdrew the permission previously granted to the defendants and called upon them to vacate the suit property on or before 15.04.2018. Despite the notice, defendants failed to vacate the suit property, compelling plaintiff to file the present suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 (Ashok Puri) passed away on 28.08.2024, and his legal representatives have been impleaded in the suit vide order dated 02.08.2025.
3. It is submitted in the application that plaintiff is sole and absolute owner of the basement and ground floor of residential property bearing No. D-1/10, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi admeasuring 605 sq. yards. It is submitted that it is the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was in possession of the suit property as a permissive user till 15.03.2018 and the said permissive use was terminated by the Plaintiff vide letter dated 08.03.2018. Despite the said termination, the defendant has failed to vacate the suit property and continues to occupy it illegally and without any authority.
3.1 The plaintiff has filed the instant application for seeking unauthorization charges @ 3,00,000/- per month as per the rent of the similarly CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 3 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.10 16:56:09 +0530 prevailing market located/situated properties. Copy of Lease Deeds of similarly located property showing prevailing rate of rent are annexed with the application. It is submitted that said properties are located in close proximity of the suit property and are similarly situated and lease rentals of the said properties have been more than Rs. 2,50,000/-per month since almost ten years. It is stated that the latest lease deed is of September, 2020 which pertains to a second floor property and the monthly lease rent is Rs.3,40,000/-. It is submitted that the conclusion of the evidence and decision of the present matter would take time and therefore, the defendant is directed to pay unauthorized use and occupation charges of the suit property by depositing the same at par with the rentals of similarly situated properties.
3.2 It is stated that the Defendant is also misusing the Plaintiffs property by incorporating a Company M/s. Fantastech India Pvt. Ltd. at the said property and showing the property as registered office of the said Company. It is stated that the registration of the said company is illegal and unauthorised and is a grave misuse of Plaintiffs property by the defendant and his son Akshay Puri of registering a company at the suit property. Copy of documents regarding M/s.
Fantastech India Pvt. Ltd. showing the suit property as its registered office as available from MCA records are also filed. It is stated that the Plaintiff is a senior citizen aged 78 years and is keeping poor health and has undergone quadruple bypass surgery. The defendant has no right or interest in Plaintiffs property but continues to occupy and use it without permission or authority and has failed to vacate the same despite being called upon. The Plaintiff is thus being denied any CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 4 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.10
16:56:11
+0530
income or return from the property for the last three years. Plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments :
1. Urmila Sharma vs. Jai Bhagwan & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4552;
2. S. Jhansi Lakshmi Bai & Ors. vs. Pothana Appa Rao & Ors., (1969) 2 Supreme Court Cases 91;
3. P.S. Jain Co. Ltd. vs. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. & Anr., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4862;
4. Kawal Sachdeva vs. Madhu Bala Rana & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1479;
5. Satish Kumar vs. Purshottam Maheshwari & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine Del11878;
6. Rajesh Khanna & Anr. vs. Asha Mehra, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1972;
7. Madan Lal Kaushik vs. Shree Yog Mayaji Temple & Ors., ILR (2011) III DELHI 247;
8. M/s. Precision Steels vs. Reeta Salwan, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4787;
9. Bhavna Khanna vs. Subir Tara Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6978; and
10.Parmod Kumar Jain & Anr. vs. Ram Kali Jain & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1710.
4. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that there is no triable issue emerging from the pleadings as the defence set out by the defendants is vague and devoid of any substance and the present suit may be decreed by invoking powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and Order XV of the CPC. It was also submitted that there are apparent inconsistencies in the stand taken by the CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 5 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.10 16:56:13 +0530 defendant from waiver of rights by plaintiff to mutual settlement and understanding to bequeathment by Will and adverse possession. It was contended that owing to these inconsistent stands, there is no requirement of any trial as no triable issue is forthcoming.
5. No formal reply was filed by the defendant to the application. The defendant also failed to file his written statement and his defence was struck off vide order dated 29.10.2018. However, the said order was recalled vide order dated 28.11.2022 and his written statement was taken on record. In written statement filed by the defendants no. 1 & 2, it is interalia averred that the rights qua the subject matter of the instant suit have already been settled between the parties in as much as the plaintiff has already waived off his rights towards the subject matter on the basis of his conduct and act of entering into a mutual settlement with Mrs. Promila Puri and the defendants herein. It is submitted that the averments are based on surmises and conjectures as such deserved to be dismissed. It is submitted that the plaintiff is residing in Canada for almost 60 years and to ensure his share in the family property be protected, Late Mrs. Promila Puri decided to give effect to this and therefore, the parties entered into a mutual settlement and understanding. The plaintiff authorized Mrs.Promila Puri to help him in disposing of the suit property and to give the entire proceeds of the sale to the plaintiff. Further, plaintiff had authorised Late Mrs. Promila Puri to dispose of two other properties bearing address : 412-A, Ansal Bhawan, K.G. Marg, New Delhi and 408, Surya Kiran, K.G. Marg, New Delhi. In considerations of the efforts of Late Smt. Promila Puri the plaintiff had CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 6 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.10 16:56:16 +0530 bequeathed his rights qua the ground floor and basement of the suit property whereby the defendants herein and Late Mrs. Promila Puri were given complete ownership and possession rights qua the ground floor and basement of the suit property upon payment of a small sum. During the lifetime of Mrs. Promila Puri, she repeatedly remind the plaintiff to transfer the complete ownership qua ground floor and basement of the suit property, however, plaintiff assured her that he would bequeath with her through a Will so that the parties did not have to pay the statutory applicable taxes qua the said transfer. The plaintiff assured them that once they inherit the ground floor and basement of the suit property, they would have to pay minimal mutation charges and they would be able to prevent payment of the aforesaid taxes and levies. Plaintiff has also executed a Will to this effect bequeathing complete rights qua the suit property to Late Mrs. Promila Puri. After the demise of Mrs. Promila Puri, the plaintiff and defendants came to the agreement that plaintiff would continue and enjoy to operate complete ownership and control over the joint account of plaintiff and Late Mrs. Promila Puri and defendants will get the complete ownership of ground floor and basement of the suit property. The defendants relinquished all their rights qua the said joint account and plaintiff continued to enjoy the sole benefit of said joint account. The defendants have stated that they have been residing in the property for more that 19 years as such they have sole possession of ground floor and basement of the suit property for the said period. They also submitted that they enjoyed the adverse possession qua the ground floor and basement of the suit property. The averments in the plaint are denied by the defendants and their claim CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 7 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.10
16:56:18
+0530
is asserted over the suit property. Defendants have relied upon the following judgments :-
1. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd., (2017) 1 SCC 568;
2. Vijay Gupta & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta, 2007 (95) DRJ 167; and
3. R.K. Markan vs. Rajiv Kumar Markan, 2002 (62) DRJ 241.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. The plea of plaintiff for grant of mesne profit has to be decided on the basis of evaluation and analysis of the rival pleadings in the backdrop of statutory provisions. Further, the claim of mesne profit is predicated upon the issue of ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property as such the pleadings have to be seen in totality for determining the same. The defendants have averred that their rights qua the subject property have already been settled with the plaintiff as he has already waived of his rights through his act and conduct following a mutual settlement with Mrs. Promila Puri and defendants herein. Defendants have averred that plaintiff entered into mutual settlement and understanding whereby authorizing Mrs. Promila Puri to help her in disposing the suit property and giving the entire proceeds of sale to the plaintiff and also authorized Mrs. Promila Puri to dispose of her two other properties. It is pertinent to note that the defendants have not pleaded in their written statement elaborately about the mutual settlement and understanding between the parties. Apparently a passing reference has been made without any finer details of the said mutual settlement and understanding regarding date and timing of its execution, CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 8 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.10
16:56:24
+0530
witnesses etc. Therefore, it is coming to fore that the execution of said agreement or settlement is not proved. Also, the waiving off the share or the right in a property can not be by way of an oral agreement. The same has to be necessarily registered for effecting its validity. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sushila v. Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj, wherein in a partition suit dealt with the plea of an oral family settlement as under:-
"13. The defence of alleged oral family settlement and oral relinquishment of shares taken by the defendant No. 1 is totally in contradiction of his earlier admission in the above mentioned civil suit. The defendant No. 1 cannot be permitted to take a false defence as an afterthought just to prolong the present suit and to delay the grant of legitimate rights of the plaintiffs. The alleged plea of the family settlement of the defendant No. 1 is false as the defendant No. 1 has not given any details or date of any alleged family settlement. Moreover, there cannot be any oral relinquishment of the share in an immovable property as it requires compulsory registration."
8. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Prema Suryanarayanan v. S. Venkataramanan observed that a party pleading oral partition has to establish the same by producing convincing evidence.
11. In the present case, there seems to be a defence of both an oral partition as well as an oral agreement of relinquishment. It has been averred that the plaintiff already got her share in the suit properties and at the same time, Plaintiff and Defendant No. 6 agreed not to be CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 9 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.10
16:56:27
+0530
concerned with the suit properties in the future. Therefore, Defendants have contended that there was an oral partition whereby Plaintiff was to be given her share in the suit properties but, there was an oral settlement and thereunder the Plaintiff gave up her share in the property and received an amount in lieu thereof.
12. This defence is clearly sham and is of no consequence; it is ambiguous and self-contradictory. On the one hand, the Contesting Defendants deny the share of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 6 and contend that they have relinquished their share, on the other hand it is averred that there has been an oral partition, and thereafter she received her share. This plea of oral partition is an acknowledgment of pre-existing rights of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 6 in the suit properties and further the defence is vague and has to be rejected at the threshold. The written statement does not set out necessary facts and circumstances of the alleged 'oral partition'. The suit properties continue to be in the name of the deceased father. There are no documents enclosed alongwith the written statement that could indicate the properties were partitioned and this was recorded in any public records. In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the Supreme Court was seized of the question surrounding conflicting interpretations of Section 6(5) of the HSA dealing with rights of a daughter in a coparcenary property. In the context of Section 6(5), the Court made certain observations regarding a plea of 'oral partition' and observed as follows:
"127....... The provisions of Section 6(5) are required to be interpreted to cast a heavy burden of proof upon proponent of oral partition before it is accepted such as separate occupation of portions, appropriation of the income, and consequent entry in the CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 10 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.10 16:56:29 +0530 revenue records and invariably to be supported by other contemporaneous public documents admissible in evidence, may be accepted most reluctantly while exercising all safeguards. .............When such a defence is taken, the Court has to be very extremely careful in accepting the same, and only if very cogent, impeccable, and contemporaneous documentary evidence in shape of public documents in support are available, such a plea may be entertained, not otherwise. We reiterate that the plea of an oral partition or memorandum of partition, unregistered one can be manufactured at any point in time, without any contemporaneous public document needs rejection at all costs."
9. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the plea of the defendants regarding oral agreement and settlement with the plaintiff following his waiver off rights in the subject property is without any substance and same is accordingly dismissed. Further, the defendants have pleaded that the plaintiff has bequeathed all his rights qua the ground floor and basement of the suit property whereby the defendants and Mrs. Promila Puri were given complete ownership and possession rights upon payment of a small sum. However, the defendants have not provided any documentary proof of the said payment of "small sum". The same seems to be a vague averment only. Also, it seems to be contradictory as on one hand, they claimed that defendant has waived off his right in the suit property owing to mutual settlement and understanding and on the other hand, claiming bequeathment of the rights and ownership in the suit property upon payment of a small sum. Further, defendants claim that plaintiff had executed a CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 11 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.10
16:56:32
+0530
Will whereby bequeathing complete rights qua the suit property to Late Mrs. Promila Puri, however, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff is alive and by way of his notice dated 08.03.2018, his intent is clear that he has executed no such Will or if at all earlier executed, the same stands superseded. Therefore, the claim of the defendant that after demise of Mrs. Promila Puri, they were entitled to the suit property upon the agreement with plaintiff is without any legal foundation.
10. Regarding the plea of the defendant that they were residing in the suit property for more than 19 years, as such they have sole possession of ground floor and basement of the suit property for the said period and enjoying the same adverse to the interest of the plaintiff and claimed the plea of adverse possession. In the this context, reliance is placed on the following judgments:-
(i) Gaya Parshad Dikshit vs. Dr. Nirmal Chander and Anr., AIR 1984 SC 930, wherein it was held that mere termination of the license of a licensee does not enable the licensee to claim adverse possession, unless and until he sets up a title hostile to that of the licenser after termination of his license. It is not merely unauthorized possession on termination of his license that enables the licensee to claim title by adverse possession, but there must be some overact on the part of the licensee to show that he is claiming adverse possession. Mere continuance of unauthorized possession even for a period of more than 12 years is not enough.
(ii) Sheodhari Rai and Ors. vs. Suraj Prasad Singh and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 758, wherein it was laid down that permissive possession cannot be treated as adverse possession till the defendant asserts an adverse possession.CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 12 / 21
K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.10 16:56:34 +0530
(iii) Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and Ors, vs. Balwant alias Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil (dead) by LRs & heirs etc., AIR 1995 SC 895, wherein the Supreme Court enunciated the law to be that adverse possession means a hostile assertion, i.e., a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner and held that under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively.
(iv) Harbans Kaur & Ors. vs. Bhola Nath & Anr, 57 (1994) DLT 101, wherein it was laid down by this Court that the burden of proving adverse possession was a heavy one. Adverse possession implied a hostile possession whereby the title of the true owner is denied. A person who claims adverse possession must show on what date he came into possession and that he had been in continuous possession for more than 12 years, without a break and without interruption; his possession was to the exclusion of all other persons; his possession was of such a nature that it involved the exercise of rights so irreconcilable with that of the true owner as to afford him an opportunity to dispute that possession during that 12 years when he was in the process of perfecting his title. Adverse possession must have commenced in wrong and must be maintained against right. It must be open and hostile to the true owner. Possession must be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario, i.e., for the perfection of title it must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent.
11. As per the averments in the Written Statement, the defendant himself has admitted that plaintiff gave complete ownership and possession to CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 13 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.10 16:56:36 +0530 Mrs. Promila Puri on the basis of mutual settlement and understanding and after the death of Mrs. Promila Puri, the defendants came to an agreement with the plaintiff that they will get the complete ownership of the ground floor and basement of the suit property. The said mutual settlement and understanding could not be proved. Therefore, the occupation apparently was "permissive" in nature or as "licensee". Once the defendants have taken a position of their ownership by virtue of mutual settlement and understanding, the subsequent change of stand of plea of ownership by way of adverse possession seems to be an afterthought. To recapitulate, it is not the case of the defendants that their ownership by way of adverse possession for more than 12 years is in hostility of its true owner. Also, it is noteworthy that with the plea of adverse possession, the defendants admit that the plaintiff is the true owner of the suit property. For a plea of ownership on the basis of adverse possession, the first and foremost condition is that property belongs to a person other than the person pleading his title on the basis of adverse possession. Thus, the plea of ownership by way of adverse possession can not be countenanced.
12. Regarding the invocation of powers of court under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and Order XV CPC, it would be apposite to visit the said provisions. Order XII Rule 6 CPC is reproduced as under:
"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 CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 14 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.10
16:56:39
+0530
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."
13. The ambit and scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is such that it confers almost sweeping powers on the Court to render speedy judgment in the suit to save the parties from going through the rigmarole of a protracted trial. As laid down in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and of various High Courts, the only pre-requisite is that there must be admissions of fact arising in the suit, either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, and such admissions of fact must be clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. There is, however, no requirement for such admissions of facts to be specific or express and even constructive admissions have been deemed sufficient to pronounce judgment thereon. Furthermore, such admissions, it is well settled, may be culled out from the pleadings of the parties or otherwise' either by the Court or by any of the parties who may thereupon of its own motion move an application for pronouncement of judgment on the basis thereof. A duty is then cast on the Court to ascertain the admission of facts and to render judgment thereon, either in respect of the whole or a part of the claim made in the suit, after ascertaining CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 15 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.10 16:56:41 +0530 whether the defence set up is such that it requires evidence for the determination of the issues or whether the defence is an irreconcilable one, rendering it well nigh impossible for the defendant to succeed even if the same is entertained. For the aforesaid purpose, it would be open to the Court to look into the admissions gathered even constructively for the purpose of rendering a speedy judgment, subject of course to the stipulation that the objections B raised by the opposite party against rendering the judgment are such which do not go to the root of the matter and are inconsequential in nature, making it impossible for the objecting party to succeed even if entertained.
14. In Sandeep Kohli v. Vinod Kohli, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, while dealing with an Order 12 Rule 6 application in a partition suit, made certain observations as to how 'oral partitions' are to be dealt with. These observations may be germane to the present discussion:-
"22. Though undoubtedly a plea of oral partition is required to be put to trial but when it is pitted against documents executed on oath and on solemn affirmation by the person taking the said plea of co- ownership, in my view to still put such plea to trial would amount to the Court allowing its process to be abused by the person taking such a plea and assisting him to abuse the process of the Court and the implicit delays in trial to reap unfair advantage to himself and to the prejudice of the other party. Not only has the counsel for the Me defendant No. 1 failed to state as to what the defendant No. 1, even If given an opportunity to lead evidence can prove to renege out of CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 16 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.10
16:56:43
+0530
the situation but I am also unable to fathom any get away for the defendant No. 1, even if granted such an opportunity.
23. Though undoubtedly there is no admission of the defendant No.1 in his written statement filed in this suit of co-ownership and rather the defendant No. 1 in the written statement in this suit has pleaded a prior oral partition but Courts have in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India (2000) 7 SCC 120:
(2000) 7 SCC 120, Vivek Narayan Pal v. Sumitra Pal 2010 SCC OnLine Del 433: (2010) 169 DLT 443 (DB), C.N. Ramappa Gowda v. C.C. Chandregowda (2012) 5 SCC 265: (2012) 5 SCC 265 and Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl v. Koninklijke Phillips Electronics 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2313 invoked the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC to negate such improbable pleas which have no chance of succeeding on the face of the admitted material on record and which pleas are taken merely to lengthen litigation and to use the said time to coerce the plaintiff into settling for less than his due.
24. Not only Order XII Rule 6 CPC but Order XV CPC also requires and empowers the Court to put a suit to trial only if a material proposition of fact or law is submitted by one party and denied by the other. The plea of the defendant No. 1 of oral partition of the property, though if proved can certainly defeat the claim of the plaintiffs of partition but is not found to be a material one, since the defendant No. 1 who has taken the said plea has in an earlier statement on oath stated contrary thereto."
15. Order XV is reproduced as under:
CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 17 / 21K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.10
16:56:46
+0530
ORDER XV: DISPOSAL OF THE SUIT AT THE
FIRST HEARING:
1. Parties not at issue
Where at the first hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the court may at once pronounce judgment.
2. One of several defendants not at issue (1) Where there are more defendants than one, and any one of the defendants is not at issue with the plaintiff on any question of law or of fact, the court may at once pronounce judgment for or against such defendant and the suit shall proceed only against the other defendants.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
3. Parties at issue (1) Where the parties are at issue on some question of law or of fact, and issues have been framed by the court as hereinbefore provided, if the court is satisfied that no further argument or evidence than the parties can at once adduce is required upon such of the issues as may be sufficient for the decision of the suit, and that no injustice will result from proceeding with the suit forthwith, the court may proceed to determine such issues, and, if CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 18 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.02.10
16:56:49
+0530
the finding thereon is sufficient for the decision, may pronounce judgment accordingly, whether the summons has been issued for the settlement of issues only or for the final disposal of the suit:
PROVIDED that, where the summons has been issued for the settlement of issues only, the parties or their pleaders are present and none of them objects.
(2) Where the finding is not sufficient for the decision, the court shall postpone the further hearing of the suit, and shall fix a day for the production of such further evidence, or for such further argument as the case requires.
4. Failure to produce evidence Where the summons has been issued for the final disposal of the suit and either party fails without sufficient cause to produce the evidence on which he relies, the court may at once pronounce judgment, or may, if it thinks fit, after framing and recording issues, adjourn the suit for the production of such evidence as may be necessary for its decision upon such issues.
16. In the case of Master Ansh Kapoor and Anr vs. K.B. Kapur and Ors, decided on 12.02.2021 CS(OS) 3438/2014 and IA No 3789/2016-AIR 2021 DELHI 51, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under :
"In this context, it is settled position of law that CPC does not require all matters to be decided only after trial or unless admissions are made. Issues are to be framed on material proposition of law and CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 19 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.10 16:56:52 +0530 facts which the plaintiff alleges in order to show a right to sue or the defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. Where parties are found not in issue on any question of law or fact, Order 15 CPC requires the court to at once pass a judgment."
17. In my considered opinion, it was incumbent upon the defendant to provide necessary details and documents with respect to the mutual settlement and understanding and an ipse dixit statement of the defendant with respect to the mutual settlement and understanding would not suffice. Further, the plea of bequeathment of the suit property by way of Will by the plaintiff also stood negated. The plea of waiver of the rights by the plaintiff over the suit property stood demolished. The plea of ownership by adverse possession is found to be baseless. Apparently, there have been inconsistent positions are taken by the defendants. From the bare pleadings of the parties, they are not found at variance on any issue of law or fact requiring a full blown trial. Order XII Rule 6 CPC empowers the court to pronounce the judgment on admission, however, Order XV CPC empowers the court to pronounce judgment when the parties are not found to be on variance on any issue of law and facts. The underlined principal in the aforesaid provisions is to provide a speedy and expeditious judgment. Some vague and general assertions are not sufficient to create binding legal obligations and in the absence of necessary pleadings, no triable issue arises. Reliance is placed upon Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs. & Ors, 2012 (5) SCC 370.
CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 20 / 21K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.02.10
16:56:54
+0530
18. In view of the above discussion, it is forthcoming that the defendants occupation was of "permissive use" or as a "licensee". The parties could not be found at variance on any issue of law or fact which could be termed as triable issue for a trial, therefore, in view of mandate of Order XV CPC, the suit is liable to be disposed of. The suit of plaintiffs is accordingly decreed as plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff is also entitled for the mesne profit as claimed by way of present application. The claim of mesne profit to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- per month has been substantiated by way of evidence which is in the form of rent agreements of the similarly situated properties in the same area. Accordingly, plaintiff is also entitled for recovery of the possession of the suit property and plaintiff is also entitled for mesne profit to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- per month from the period of filing of the suit till realization.
19. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.02.10 16:56:58 +0530 Announced in the open court on (Dr. Pankaj Sharma) Today i.e. 10.02.2026 DJ-02 & Waqf Tribunal NDD/PHC/NEW DELHI CS No. 463/2018 Page No. 21 / 21 K.K. Arora vs. Ashok Puri