Unsubstantiated property sale defense deemed sham where receipt of funds and issuance of cheques are admitted.

The Plaintiff (Respondent) filed a suit for the recovery of ₹58,80,000, asserting she advanced a friendly loan of ₹35,00,000 to the Defendant (Appellant) in August 2017

The Defendant purportedly issued three cheques to repay the amount, but they were returned unpaid due to "Funds Insufficient" in August 2020

The Defendant contested the suit, claiming the payment was not a loan but part-consideration for an oral agreement to sell his Greater Noida flat for ₹75,00,000

He admitted receiving ₹35,00,000 and issuing the cheques but contended they were "assurance" in case the deal failed

The Trial Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and decreed the suit based on the Defendant’s admissions

Whether the Defendant's admissions in the Written Statement regarding the receipt of money and issuance of cheques were sufficient to pass a judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC

Whether the Defendant’s plea of an oral Agreement to Sell constituted a "sham" or "moonshine" defense

The court applied Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which empowers the court to pass a judgment at any stage where an admission of fact has been made either in the pleading or otherwise

It further relied on the legal principle established in *PPA Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Mangal Sain Metal*, 166 (2010) DLT 84, which mandates that if a defense is found to be a "sham" or "moonshine," it should be summarily dismissed to prevent the abuse of the judicial process

The Court observed that the Defendant categorically admitted in paragraphs 1(D) and 1(E) of his Written Statement to receiving ₹35,00,000 and issuing three cheques to the Plaintiff

The Court characterized the Defendant's claim of an oral agreement to sell the property as unsubstantiated, noting the lack of documentary evidence and the fact that the Defendant remained in possession of the flat

The Court reasoned that if the transaction were a genuine agreement to sell, the Defendant would have no cause to "secure" the amount by issuing cheques that eventually dishonored

Consequently, the Court found that the defense was a "sham" intended to avoid liability for a purely monetary transaction, justifying a decree on the basis of unambiguous admissions

The Court affirmed the recovery of ₹58,80,000 in favor of the Plaintiff/Respondent and held that no merit existed in the Appellant's challenge, as the admissions were unequivocal and the defense was legally untenable