Implied admissions of impersonation in pleadings justify a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6.

The Petitioner, an 82-year-old original allottee of a tenement in Navi Mumbai, alleged that Respondents 4 and 5 used forged documents and an impersonator to execute and register a Deed of Apartment (10th Oct 2016) and a Conveyance Deed (30th Nov 2016) transferring the property to Respondent 4.

Upon unearthing the fraud, CIDCO revoked the NOC and noted the impersonation, but advised the Petitioner to seek cancellation through a Civil Court.

The Petitioner filed RCS No. 240 of 2023 for a declaration that the deeds were null and void.

In his Written Statement, Respondent 4 stated he "came to know" from CIDCO officials that the person who sold him the flat was an impersonator and that the Petitioner was the real owner.

The Petitioner applied for a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which the Civil Judge, Thane, rejected on 12th September 2024, holding the admissions were not clear and unconditional.

1. Whether the statements made by Respondent 4 in his Written Statement regarding the identity of the real owner and the role of an impersonator constitute "clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions" under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

2. Whether the Court should exercise its discretionary power to pass a judgment on admission when the defendant claims to be a bona fide victim of the same fraud.

The court primarily applied Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which allows a court to pass a judgment based on admissions of fact made in pleadings or otherwise, orally or in writing, at any stage of the suit.

It relied on Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, establishing that the rule's object is to provide speedy judgment where a plain admission makes it impossible for the admitter to succeed.

It further cited Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, noting that admissions can be "inferred from facts and circumstances" and the term "otherwise" provides a wide sweep.

It also referenced Himani Alloys Limited v. Tata Steel Limited regarding the discretionary nature of the power and Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal, stating admissions can be express, implied, or constructive.

The High Court found that the Trial Court took an unduly narrow view of the admissions.

In paragraphs 22(j) to 22(m) of the Written Statement, Respondent 4 repeatedly asserted that he was "cheated/deceived" by an "impersonator" of the Petitioner.

The Court held that even if Respondent 4 framed these as facts he "came to know," they were coupled with a lack of specific denial regarding the Petitioner's claim that no transaction ever occurred between the actual parties.

The Court noted the "implied and constructive" nature of these admissions: by claiming he was a victim of an impersonator, Respondent 4 necessarily admitted that the instrument was not executed by the real owner (the Petitioner).

Furthermore, the recital in the 2016 Conveyance Deed claiming consideration was paid 18 years prior (in 1998) was viewed as a circumstance militating against the necessity of a full trial.

The Court reasoned that a trial regarding the validity of the documents was unwarranted when the transferee himself admitted the transferor was an impersonator.

It held that the cumulative effect of the pleadings constituted an admission that the deeds were void.

The Court passed a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6, declaring the Deed of Apartment (10th Oct 2016) and Conveyance Deed (30th Nov 2016) null and void.

It directed the instruments be delivered up for cancellation and ordered the trial court to notify the Registrar of Assurances to record the cancellation.

It clarified that this civil judgment would not influence the merits of the pending criminal prosecution (FIR No. 114 of 2017).