Judgment for Recovery on Admission Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC Must Be Clear and Unequivocal

The case arises from a family dispute involving the sale of ancestral agricultural land in 2007 for approximately Rs. 15.31 crores, the proceeds of which were received by Respondent No. 2 (father of the parties)

Respondent No. 1 (daughter) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 45 lakhs and partition, claiming her share in the sale proceeds

Defendant No. 3 (appellants' late father) filed a written statement mentioning a family settlement where he received Rs. 3 crores

A preliminary decree later fixed each party’s share at 1/6th (approx. Rs. 2.55 crores)

Respondent No. 1 then sought a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, arguing Defendant No. 3 admitted to receiving more than his share

While the Trial Court dismissed the application citing triable issues, the Delhi High Court reversed this in revision, decreeing the suit based on the written statement

1. Whether the averments made by Defendant No. 3 in the written statement amounted to a clear, unequivocal, and unconditional admission to justify a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC

2. Whether the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC by reversing a finding of fact regarding the existence of triable issues

The Court applied Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which grants discretionary power to pass a judgment on admissions provided the admission is "clear, unambiguous, and unconditional"

It referenced Sections 17 and 18 of the Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the definition of admissions

Precedentially, the Court relied on Vikrant Kapila v. Pankaja Panda and Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd., which establish that Order XII Rule 6 is an enabling, discretionary provision that should not be used to deny a defendant’s right to a trial unless the admission is categorical

Regarding revisional powers, it invoked Pandurang Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav, holding that Section 115 CPC does not allow a court to act as an appellate body to reassess facts

The Supreme Court reasoned that the High Court erred by reading a single paragraph of the written statement in isolation

When read holistically, Defendant No. 3’s statement regarding the receipt of Rs. 3 crores was contextualized within a disputed family settlement and was accompanied by a denial of liability toward the plaintiff

The Court noted that since the entire sale amount was held by Respondent No. 2, the liability of Defendant No. 3 involved complex factual questions of fiduciary duty and inter-se distribution that required evidence

Crucially, the Court observed that the High Court had previously framed specific issues for trial in 2015, which inherently acknowledged the existence of triable disputes, making the subsequent summary decree under Order XII Rule 6 inappropriate

The Court found the High Court's exercise of Section 115 CPC jurisdiction flawed as it substituted its own interpretation of pleadings for that of the Trial Court without identifying a jurisdictional error

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Delhi High Court's judgment and restoring the Trial Court's order; the suit was remanded to the Trial Court for independent adjudication on merits