01Facts
M/s Jaina Properties Pvt. Ltd. held perpetual leasehold rights over the land on which it constructed Jagdamba Tower and granted Spaces G-10 and G-11 to the original allottees under licence agreements.
¶ 3–6, 44The appellants claimed through subsequent transactions with those allottees and their successors.
¶ 7–16Jaina Properties alleged non-payment of charges and unauthorised transfers, terminated the licences by notice dated 2 March 2023, and sued for possession and other reliefs.
¶ 7–16The Trial Court decreed possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, leaving the claim for damages and mesne profits for evidence.
¶ 23–28The appellants challenged that decree in this appeal.
¶ 29–3502Issues
i.1. Whether the Trial Court could pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC without an application by the plaintiff, and whether the appellants had adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
¶ 36–42ii.2. Whether the pleadings and record established a sufficient basis to uphold the decree for possession, including Jaina Properties’ right to seek possession and the appellants’ claimed rights under the subsequent transfers.
¶ 43–70iii.3. Whether the appellants satisfied the requirements for admitting additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.
¶ 71–8503Law Applied
Order XII Rule 6 CPC empowers a court to pronounce judgment on admissions either on a party’s application or on its own motion, where the admissions warrant judgment.
¶ 37–40The relevant licence agreements made transfer or substitution of a licensee subject to the builder’s approval, including written approval for a change in the licensee’s name; delay or indulgence did not waive contractual requirements.
¶ 52–58Under Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, an Agreement to Sell, GPA and Will do not, by themselves, convey ownership as a substitute for a conveyance.
¶ 63–66Order XLI Rule 27 CPC permits additional evidence only on the prescribed grounds, including where the evidence could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier or where the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment.
¶ 73–74, 83–85Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 96
04Reasoning
The High Court rejected the procedural objections because Order XII Rule 6 expressly permits the court to act on its own motion, and the Trial Court had fixed a hearing to consider a decree against the appellants; neither they nor their counsel appeared on that date.
¶ 38–42The appellants’ own case traced their occupation to the original allotments, and their pleadings did not dispute Jaina Properties’ perpetual lease or its role in granting the original licences.
¶ 45–50The agreements required approval for transfers or substitution, but the appellants’ request that their names be recorded did not prove that approval had been given.
¶ 52–59Their private transfer documents could not, by themselves, establish ownership or rights against Jaina Properties beyond those held by their predecessors.
¶ 62–66The DDA conversion applications, recorded as rejected, did not establish an independent statutory right to retain possession.
¶ 67–70The additional documents were either irrelevant to the suit spaces or already referred to in the pleadings, and the appellants did not explain why they could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.
¶ 75–8505Holding
The High Court held that the Trial Court was entitled to consider a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on its own motion, that the appellants had notice of the proposed consideration, and that their asserted transfers did not establish a right to remain in possession against Jaina Properties.
¶ 38–42, 62–70It dismissed the application to adduce additional evidence and dismissed the appeal, leaving the decree for possession in favour of Jaina Properties undisturbed.
¶ 85–88Original Court PDF
V.B. Singh And AnrvsM/S Jaina Properties Pvt Ltd And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
