A suit cannot be dismissed under Order XII Rule 6 without clear, unequivocal admissions.

The plaintiffs, children of late Raghuraje Urs and defendant No. 1 Lakshmamma, sought partition and separate possession of their claimed shares in A- and B-schedule properties.

They pleaded that the properties were acquired with joint-family funds and contributions, although certain properties stood in Lakshmamma’s name; they also challenged a sale deed concerning one property.

Lakshmamma’s written statement admitted the plaintiffs’ material claims and supported partition, while defendants Nos. 2 and 3 did not file written statements before the Trial Court.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, treating the properties standing in Lakshmama’s name as her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, and the First Appellate Court affirmed that decision.

The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court, which framed two substantial questions of law concerning the use of Order XII Rule 6 CPC and the finding that the properties were Lakshmamma’s self-acquired properties without a trial.

1. Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were justified in invoking Order XII Rule 6 CPC in the circumstances of the case.

2. Whether the courts below erred in concluding, without trial or evidence, that the suit properties were Lakshmamma’s absolute, separate and self-acquired properties.

Order XII Rule 6 CPC permits a court to enter judgment on admissions made in pleadings or otherwise, but its discretionary power should be exercised only where the admission is clear, categorical, unambiguous and unequivocal; where material disputes or triable questions remain, the court may require evidence rather than deny a party a trial.

The judgment relies on Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 751, and Pushpa v. Dayawati, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1013, for these principles.

Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act was the basis of the lower courts’ conclusion about Lakshmamma’s ownership, but the High Court did not decide its application on the merits.

The High Court found no clear admission in the plaint that could justify disposing of the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

The plaintiffs’ case was that the properties were joint-family properties acquired through family funds and contributions, notwithstanding registration in Lakshmamma’s name.

Further, Lakshmamma’s written statement admitted those claims, including the plaintiffs’ asserted entitlement to shares; it therefore did not support dismissing the suit on an admission against the plaintiffs.

The courts below had treated title standing in Lakshmamma’s name as sufficient to determine the properties’ character under Section 14(1), without a trial or evidence.

The High Court held that Order XII Rule 6 CPC did not permit that disposition on these pleadings.

Having answered the first substantial question in the plaintiffs’ favour, it held that the second question did not survive for consideration.

The matter was remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration; defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to file their written statement within one month of the parties’ appearance, and the parties were permitted to file responsive pleadings and adduce evidence.

The Trial Court was directed to frame issues after completion of pleadings and decide the suit expeditiously, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations; all contentions on the merits were left open.