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. 4 RFA NO.1676/2019
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 5 RFA NO.1676/2019 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 6 RFA NO.1676/2019 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 7 RFA NO.1676/2019 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:-
8 RFA NO.1676/2019
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 Smt. V.G.Jayashree i.e., plaintiffs No.6 to 8 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. 9 RFA NO.1676/2019 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; 10 RFA NO.1676/2019
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 11 RFA NO.1676/2019 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 12 RFA NO.1676/2019 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:-
13 RFA NO.1676/2019
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 14 RFA NO.1676/2019 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 15 RFA NO.1676/2019 (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."16 RFA NO.1676/2019
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 17 RFA NO.1676/2019 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:
18 RFA NO.1676/2019
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.19 RFA NO.1676/2019
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 20 RFA NO.1676/2019 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."21 RFA NO.1676/2019
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 22 RFA NO.1676/2019 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 23 RFA NO.1676/2019 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 24 RFA NO.1676/2019 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, 25 RFA NO.1676/2019 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. 26 RFA NO.1676/2019
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 27 RFA NO.1676/2019 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/-