Even After Licensee’s Written Statement Was Struck, Delhi HC Says Heirs Must Prove Their Property Claims Before Decree

The plaintiffs, heirs of Late Alamgir Singh, sought, among other reliefs, specific performance, declaration, possession and injunction concerning the upper ground and first floors of a property in New Delhi.

They alleged that Alamgir Singh purchased the floors from Defendant No. 2 under a bayana receipt dated 10 September 2013, and that Defendant No. 1 occupied the first floor only as a licensee.

Defendant No. 1 later asserted that he had purchased the property from Alamgir Singh through documents dated 9 January 2015, which the plaintiffs alleged were forged. An FSL report recorded that signatures on questioned documents did not match admitted signatures.

Defendant No. 1’s written statement had been removed from the record, and his right to file an affidavit of admission/denial had been closed; the plaintiffs’ documents were deemed admitted. The plaintiffs applied under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC for judgment and decree on the pleadings and documents.

Order VIII Rule 10 CPC is permissive: even where a defendant fails to file a written statement, the Court may either pronounce judgment or make such order concerning the suit as it considers fit.

Under Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors., 2024 INSC 36, applying Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, the Court must not enter judgment mechanically; it may do so only if satisfied that no fact requires proof in light of the deemed admissions. Where the pleadings disclose disputed questions of fact, the plaintiff may be required to prove them.

Although the plaintiffs relied on the removal of Defendant No. 1’s written statement and the deemed admission of their documents, the Court considered the substance of the suit and the reliefs sought. The suit involved specific performance, declaration and possession, as well as a contested allegation that documents relied on by Defendant No. 1 were forged.

The police investigation and FSL report, even if supportive of the plaintiffs’ case, had to be proved in evidence so the Court could scrutinise them. Applying Asma Lateef and Balraj Taneja, the Court concluded that the disputed matters could not safely be resolved by entering judgment solely on the basis of the pleadings and deemed admissions.

It held that the plaintiffs must prove the relevant facts and evidence in this case before the Court can determine their claims.