Delhi HC Won’t Declare Brother Sole Owner Of Bhiwadi Plot, As Ownership Evidence Needs Full Trial

The plaintiffs, siblings of the defendant, brought a partition and possession suit concerning properties of their late parents.

The defendant sought judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC declaring him the sole owner of an industrial plot at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan, relying on the plaintiffs’ pleadings and cross-examination.

The plaintiffs contended that the plot had been allotted to their father’s concern, M/s. Ram Chand and Sons, and was part of the estate; they also alleged that the defendant had transferred and sold it despite a status quo order.

The suit was at the evidence stage when the defendant filed the application.

Order XII Rule 6 CPC permits the Court, at any stage of a suit, to pronounce judgment on admissions of fact made in pleadings or otherwise, orally or in writing.

In Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 751, relying on Uttam Singh v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120, the Supreme Court affirmed that judgment on an admitted claim may be sought at any stage.

However, such judgment requires admissions sufficiently clear and unambiguous to support the relief sought.

The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC could not be brought once evidence had begun, because the rule expressly permits judgment at any stage.

But the evidence did not establish an unequivocal admission of the defendant’s exclusive ownership.

Although one plaintiff acknowledged that the defendant had signed a lease deed as proprietor, he also stated that the property had been forcibly transferred into the defendant’s name; another described the property as the defendant’s but admitted she had never seen its title documents.

The plaint itself alleged that the property was initially allotted to M/s. Ram Chand and Sons and was later transferred to the defendant through manipulation.

These competing assertions left unresolved who owned or operated the concern and how the property came to be held in the defendant’s name.

Those matters required determination at trial.

The application for judgment on admissions was dismissed, leaving the disputed ownership issues to be resolved after full trial.