Shri. Rakesh Chand Gupta & Ors. vs Naresh Chand Gupta
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 28 September 2026
Pronounced on: 05 November 2026
+ CS(OS) 124/2017
SHRI. RAKESH CHAND GUPTA & ORS. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu A. Walia,
Adv.
versus
NARESH CHAND GUPTA .....Defendant
Through: Mr. Manish Makhija, Ms.
Simran Makhija and Mr.
Akash Giri, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
O R D E R
% 05.11.2026
I.A. 23074/2026 (judgment on admissions)
1. The present application has been preferred by the
defendant under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 (“CPC” in short) seeking a preliminary decree by this Court
qua declaring the defendant to be the sole and absolute owner of
the property i.e., Plot No. G-474, RIICO, Industrial Area,
Bhiwadi, Rajasthan (hereinafter “subject property”) on the basis
of the admissions made by the plaintiffs.
2. The parties to the present suit are siblings, being children
of Late Shri Ram Chand Gupta and Late Smt. Samar Lata Gupta.
I.A. 23074/2026 in CS (OS) 124/2017 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:13:16
Plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for partition and
possession in respect of the properties of their late parents.
3. The suit is presently at the stage of evidence.
4. The defendant has now filed this application seeking
dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim only to the extent of the subject
property whereby, as per the defendant, plaintiffs during their
evidence have admitted the subject property as „not a family-
owned property‟ and rather a property purchased by the
defendant.
5. Learned Counsel for the defendant submits that the
defendant is the exclusive owner of this property through a
registered lease deed dated 26.05.1988 and has been conducting
his business from the subject property for more than three
decades. He further submitted that though in the plaint,
particularly, paragraph 8 of the plaint does not depict the full
description of the said subject property being worded as
„ Property being industrial plot at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan ‟.
6. Learned Counsel for the defendant states that the title and
ownership status of the subject property can be decided by this
Court unambiguously under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, merely
on the basis of the admissions made by plaintiffs during their
evidence.
7. Learned Counsel for plaintiffs has opposed the application
submitting that the subject property was allotted in 1986 to M/s
Ram Chand & Sons, a proprietorship firm of the father of the
parties and therefore, the subject property comes within the array
of suit properties, upon which this Court‟s status quo order dated
I.A. 23074/2026 in CS (OS) 124/2017 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:13:16
03.05.2019 operates. It is submitted that defendant vide I.A.
9350/2021 sought permission to sell the subject property, but
without permission of this Court, the defendant sold the subject
property on 11.08.2021.
8. Learned Counsel for plaintiffs contends that the present
application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC by the defendant,
is an attempt to retrospectively legitimise the sale of the subject
property effected in violation of this Court‟s status quo order
dated 03.05.2019.
9. It is further argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff that
whenever the case is at the stage of evidence, a judgment under
Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC cannot be passed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
11. First of all, it is necessary to understand as to what is the
settled position of law with regard to judgment on admissions.
Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC reads thus:
“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.
(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.”
12. The above rule states that a decree can be passed at any
stage of the trial of a claim if admitted by the opposite party. I
I.A. 23074/2026 in CS (OS) 124/2017 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:13:16
would also like to refer to a Supreme Court‟s judgment in this
regard, whereby the Court in Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan
Jaiswal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 751 observed thus:
“39. This rule authorizes the court to enter a judgment
where a claim is admitted and to pass a decree on such
admitted claim. This can be done at any stage . [See:
Uttam Singh v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120].
Thus, a plaintiff may move for judgment upon admission
by the defendant in his written statement at any stage of
the suit although he has joined issue on the defence.”
[See: Brown v. Pearson, [L.R.] 21 Ch. 716]. Likewise, a
defendant may apply for dismissal of the suit on the basis
of admission by the plaintiff in rejoinder.”
13. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for plaintiffs
cannot be accepted and it cannot be said that this is not the stage
to file the application.
14. In light of the aforesaid position of law, it is necessary to
see, on the basis of admissions, as to whether the plaintiff has
admitted that the subject property is independently owned by
defendant, namely Naresh Chand Gupta or is it a part of a joint
family property and forms part of the subject properties. If it is a
self owned property of defendant Sh. Naresh Chand Gupta, it will
not remain a subject matter of partition.
15. Certain facts including plaintiffs‟ evidence are relied upon
by the learned Counsel for the defendant, which according to
him, may be considered as admissions on behalf of plaintiffs.
These are:
I.A. 23074/2026 in CS (OS) 124/2017 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:13:16
a. Prior to filing of the present suit, plaintiff No.
3, vide her legal notice dated 21.04.2016 addressed to
plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant, set out a detailed list
of properties belonging to their parents which did not
include any property at Bhiwadi, much less the subject
property.
b. Plaintiffs in para 23 of the plaint have claimed
that property at Bhiwadi was a separate property of
defendant. The same is reproduced herein under:
"23. That the record would further reveal that the property
at Bhiwadi was initially allotted to Plaintiff no. 1 in 1986
in the name of Ram Chand and Sons HUF (also mentioned
as R.C and Sons). This was a separate property of the
Plaintiff no.l. The same was forfeited by the land owing
agency for certain defaults on the part of the Plaintiff No.1.
The Defendant thereafter manipulates the documents with
the land owing agency and has the same allotted to himself
as a sole proprietor of a certain enterprise. A separate
bank account in the name of the said enterprise has also
been opened. The Defendant is enjoying the property ever
since."
c. Plaintiff No.1 during his cross-examination
dated 19.11.2019, admits that defendant has signed the
lease deed dated 26.05.1988. The relevant portion of
the cross examination is reproduced hereunder:
“Attention of the witness is drawn to a document at page
123 of the defendant's documents dated 06.06.2017 in Suit
No. 124 of 2017, marked as Mark-X-3.
I have seen this document in the case file. It is correct that
Sh. Naresh Chand Gupta has signed this document as
Proprietor of Ram Chand and Sons as shown in the
document Vol. My father was of the view that somebody
wants to occupy the said premises and there was
correspondence done by my father Ram Chand Gupta. No
such correspondence is on the Court file.
Q.3. When, for the first time, did you come to know that the
property Industrial Plot Bhiwadi, Rajasthan is in the name
I.A. 23074/2026 in CS (OS) 124/2017 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:13:16
of Mr. Naresh Chand Gupta or his sole proprietorship
firm?
Ans. When my father was in the last stage of his life he told
my uncle (mama) that the property has been got
transferred by Naresh Chand Gupta in his name forcibly.
My father did not take any legal steps against Naresh
Chand Gupta in this regard. Vol. No father would like to
do that to his son. My father passed away on 05.11.2010
on Diwali Day. After my father's death I had addressed a
letter to the Authority as how the name in the document
has been changed. I have not filed that letter on court file.
It is wrong to suggest that I have not filed the said
document since no such document exists. I have not taken
any legal action against anybody about this plot. I had
seen some documents in the file of the authority which
were signed by Naresh Chand Gupta. I cannot say if they
were signed on behalf of Ram Chand and Sons. I have not
filed any document with regard to the Bhiwadi plot on the
court file in this case. I cannot say if the said plot was ever
purchased by me in my name. I do not know in whose name
the plot was allotted but the allotment letter was given to
me and I have a photograph recording the same."
d. Plaintiff No.2 during her cross-examination
dated 24.03.2026, admits that the subject property was
owned by her younger brother i.e. defendant namely
Naresh Chand Gupta. The relevant part of the cross
examination is extracted hereinbelow:
“The property at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan as stated by me in
para 6 of my Affidavit, Ex. PW2/A was in the name of my
elder brother/Mr. Rakesh Chand Gupta. My father had
informed me that the above said property is owned by my
elder brother/Mr. Rakesh Chand Gupta. It is correct that
there were two properties in Rajasthan and the second
property was also near the property at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan.
The second property was owned by my younger
brother/Mr. Naresh Chand Gupta. I have never seen the
title documents with respect to the two properties in
Rajasthan. It is correct that my information regarding
these two properties is as per what was told to me by my
father. I am not aware of the address of either of the two
properties.”
I.A. 23074/2026 in CS (OS) 124/2017 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:13:16
16. Relying upon the aforesaid cross-examination, it is
submitted that the defendant is entitled to a judgment on
admission to the effect that the subject property at Bhiwadi,
Rajasthan does not form part of the subject matter of partition
and it is prayed that the defendant may be held to be the sole and
independent owner of the subject property.
17. The defendant in written statement has pleaded that he
holds the subject property in his name as sole proprietor of M/s.
Ram Chand and Sons.
18. It is argued by learned Counsel for the plaintiff that M/s.
Ram Chand and Sons was a proprietorship firm setup by late Sh.
Ram Chand Gupta, the father of the parties. The subject property
was allotted to M/s. Ram Chand and Sons in the year 1996. Even
the payments towards allotment were made by the plaintiff no.1
and not by the defendant. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff,
therefore, argued that the subject property allotted to M/s. Ram
Chand and Sons in the year 1988 was, in fact, a property of late
Sh. Ram Chand Gupta and upon his death on 05.11.2010, the
said concern ceased to exist and the property as stood in its name
was subject to be distributed among his legal heirs.
19. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs have argued that this
application has been moved by the defendant with the sole
purpose from absolving him from the contempt because he sold
the property despite a status quo order.
20. I am not inclined to take the issue of contempt in
consideration because presently this Court is only looking into
the admissions of facts made by the plaintiff.
I.A. 23074/2026 in CS (OS) 124/2017 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:13:16
21. It is settled law that a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of
the CPC can be passed only if the admissions are clear and
unambiguous. Here the issue arises as to who was the proprietor
of M/s. Ram Chand and Sons. It is true that the plaintiff no.1 has
testified in cross-examination about defendant having signed as
proprietor of M/s. Ram Chand and Sons but it cannot be held at
this stage that plaintiffs have admitted the claim that defendant
had become proprietor of that firm. In fact in cross-examination,
the plaintiff no.1 has stated that the property had been got
transferred by Mr. Naresh Chand Gupta in his name forcibly.
22. Learned Counsel for the defendant has drawn my attention
to the testimony of PW2 (plaintiff no.2), who has stated in her
cross-examination that subject property was owned by Mr.
Naresh Chand Gupta – defendant. However, immediately,
thereafter she has stated that she has never seen the title
documents of these properties.
23. I am of the opinion that in view of these statements made
by the plaintiffs in their cross-examination, it is difficult to reach
to a straight conclusion as to whether the subject property should
be considered to be the subject matter of partition or independent
property of defendant.
24. It is necessary to mention here that in para 23 of the plaint
(already reproduced), it is stated that this property was initially
allotted to plaintiff no.1 in 1986 in the name of M/s. Ram Chand
and Sons, HUF. However, the same was forfeited by land owning
agency for certain defaults on the part of plaintiff no.1. It is
averred that defendant thereafter manipulated the documents with
I.A. 23074/2026 in CS (OS) 124/2017 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:13:16
the land owning agency and got the same allotted to himself as a
sole proprietor of the said concern.
25. Therefore, these facts are required to be ascertained and
crystallized after full trial. At present, I do not find it a fit case for
passing a judgment on admissions.
26. The present application is accordingly dismissed.
VINOD KUMAR, J
NOVEMBER 05, 2026 / vb/Anish
I.A. 23074/2026 in CS (OS) 124/2017 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:13:16