Judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC requires a clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admission of fact.

The Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition regarding property No. H-18-19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, which originally belonged to their grandmother, Late Smt. Harbans Kaur Oberoi

The grandmother left a registered Will dated 30.10.1998, which bequeathed specific floors to her children: the ground floor and roof of the second floor to three daughters (Defendants 1, 4, and 5); the first floor to one son (Defendant 6); and the second floor (without roof rights) to the Plaintiffs’ father

The Plaintiffs alleged that although the Will demarcated floors, the property was never partitioned by metes and bounds, and the second floor is now dilapidated and unusable due to obstruction of common passages by Defendant 2

The Plaintiffs filed I.A. 4679/2023 under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, seeking a preliminary decree of partition based on the admissions in the Will and the pleadings

Defendants 2 and 3 contested the application, arguing the property was already divided by the Will and no admissions existed to warrant a decree without trial

Whether a preliminary decree for partition can be passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC when a Will has already demarcated specific portions of the property to the beneficiaries.

Whether the Plaintiffs' inability to enjoy their specific share due to the condition of the building or obstruction by other occupants constitutes a ground for a judgment on admission.

The court applied Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which empowers the court to pass a judgment where "admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise"

It relied on *Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India*, establishing that the object of the rule is to enable speedy judgment where there is a clear, unambiguous, and plain admission

Further, it applied the principle from *Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd.*, which dictates that because a judgment on admission denies the defendant a trial and the remedy of appeal on merits, the admission must be "categorical," "conscious," and "deliberate"

The court also noted the Full Bench decision in *Indu Singh v. Prem Chaudhary* regarding the partition of urban properties where physical division may not yield the true monetary value of a share due to changing Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

The Court observed that the Will dated 30.10.1998 explicitly divided the suit property into specific floor-wise parts, meaning the property "already stands partitioned under the Will"

While the Plaintiffs argued that they could not practically enjoy their share due to the dilapidated state of the building and lack of cooperation from the Defendants, the Court found these were factual disputes rather than admissions

Specifically, whether the division is practical or whether the Defendants are actively obstructing the Plaintiffs are questions of fact that require the leading of evidence

Since Defendants 2 and 3 did not admit to the Plaintiffs' claims regarding the "undivided" nature of the estate or the necessity of a sale in their Written Statement, there was no clear, unambiguous, or unconditional admission to satisfy the high threshold required under Order XII Rule 6

The Court clarified that the Will had already demarcated the shares, and any further relief depended on proving factual allegations through evidence

The suit was listed for the framing of issues on 08.04.2026