Judicial Admissions in Pleadings Overcome Illusionary Cause of Action to Bar Section 6 Possessory Suits

The plaintiff originally filed a suit for ownership based on adverse possession of a property in Saket, New Delhi

He later amended the plaint to a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, claiming he was illegally dispossessed of the ground floor on 26.10.2020

The defendant (the recorded owner) filed an application (I.A. 580/2023) under Order VII Rule 11 and Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint as barred by limitation

The defendant relied on a reply filed by the plaintiff in a separate 2017 suit (CS-DJ No. 9302/2016), wherein the plaintiff had admitted on 15.04.2017 that he was not in possession of the ground floor and reserved his right to "seek possession back"

The court primarily applied Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which mandates that a suit for recovery of possession must be brought within six months of dispossession

It relied on Order VII Rule 11 CPC regarding the rejection of a barred plaint and Order XII Rule 6 CPC regarding judgment on admissions

Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, holding that judicial admissions in pleadings stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions and are fully binding

Babita Pal v. Jagdish Bansal, allowing the court to look at material documents deliberately withheld by a plaintiff

Keshav Chander Thakur v. Krishan Chander, affirming the court's power to suo motu pass a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 based on admitted records

The court found that while the plaintiff pleaded a "concocted" dispossession date of 26.10.2020 to bring the suit within the six-month limitation period, his own 2017 judicial admission proved he was out of possession at least three years prior to filing the suit

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that limitation is always a mixed question of fact and law, noting that when an admission is clear and categorical, the suit can be dismissed summarily

The court held that the plaintiff’s failure to deny the 2017 reply or the existence of a registered lease deed in favor of a third party from 2015 meant there was no real triable issue regarding the date of dispossession

The court emphasized that it is empowered to look beyond the four corners of the plaint to include documents the plaintiff "ought to have filed" but withheld to create an "illusionary cause of action"

The court allowed the defendant’s application, rejected the plaint, and dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC