Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. It is clear from the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the DB in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in CS(OS) No. 41 of 2005 that the above averments have already been negatived. The order passed by the DB on 26th April 2010 has attained finality. That apart, the attempt by Defendant No.1 herein to incorporate averments by way of amendments to the plaint in CS (OS) No. 41 of 2005 to the effect that the property was an ancestral one and that she has a right, title or interest in the second floor and barsati floor thereof has been negatived. The statements by Defendant No.1 herein (the Plaintiff in CS (OS) No. 41 of 2005) as noted by the Court in its order dated 3rd September 2012 in CS (OS) No. 41 of 2005 stand and constitute an admission that she is claiming only the first floor of the property. As explained by the Court in SCJ Plastics Ltd. v. Creative Wares Ltd. (2012) VII AD (Del) 237, the admissions made by a party in the connected proceedings can be relied upon for the purposes of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. In the said case, the admission made before the Board for Industrial and Financial Construction in proceedings initiated by the Defendant was taken to be sufficient for the purposes of decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. In that view of the matter, this Court negatives the plea of Defendant No.1 that there is no unequivocal admission by her that the suit property was owned by Defendant No.2 or that Defendant No.1 has been in possession of only the first floor of the suit property.