The Apex Court observed that Order XII Rule 6 of CPC has confers wide discretion on the court to pass a judgment at any stage of the suit on the basis of admission of facts made in the pleading or otherwise without waiting for the determination of any other question arose between the parties. Since the Rule permits the passing of judgment at any stage without waiting for determination of other question, it follows that there can be more than one decree that may be passed at different stages of the same suit. The principle behind Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment so that either party may get rid of the rival claims which are not in controversy.
‘REPORTABLE’
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1822 OF 2015
(arising out of SLP(C)No.29805 of 2014)
Raveesh Chand Jain
versus
Raj Rani Jain
M. Y. EQBAL, J.
Dated;February 12, 2015.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment
and order dated 28.8.2014 of the High Court of Delhi allowing the
revision petition preferred by the respondent/plaintiff against
the order of the trial court which has dismissed her application
in a suit for recovery of possession and damages with respect to a
portion of the property being in unauthorized occupation of the
appellant/defendant.
3.
The
factual
matrix
of
the
case
is
that
the
plaintiff-
respondent filed a suit against the defendant/appellant who is her
son, for recovery of possession and damages alleging that she had
purchased the suit property out of her own fund and she is the
absolute owner, but part of the property was under the illegal
occupation
of
the
appellant-defendant,
who
opposed
the
suit
contending that the suit property was a Hindu Undivided Family
property having been purchased in the name of the respondent using
the funds of his grandfather, father and himself and not purchased
by
the
respondent
Appellant-defendant
dispute
regarding
as
she
further
his
was
a
housewife
pleaded
ownership
and
that
having
though
possession,
no
income.
there
the
was
same
a
was
settled between all the family members vide compromise deed dated
22.10.1997.
4.
The respondent filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of
the Code of Civil Procedure for passing a decree in her favour on
the ground that a suit for partition, which had earlier been filed
by the appellant on the same ground i.e. that the suit property
was a HUF property, had been dismissed by the District Court vide
judgment
dated
8.9.2003
and
affirmed
by
the
High
Court
vide
judgment dated 12.9.2011 and the respondent contended that the
same amounted to an unequivocal admission by the appellant that
the respondent was entitled to possession.
5.
The trial court held that though the judgment dated 8.9.2003
of the District Court and judgment dated 12.9.2011 of the High
Court
had
rejected
the
plea
of
the
appellant
that
the
suit
property was a HUF property, these findings were made in a suit
for partition whereas the present suit was filed for recovery of
possession and damages.
The trial court further held that for
passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the defendant had to
make
an
unequivocal
and
unqualified
admission.
The
appellant
herein has not made such an admission regarding his liability to
pay
the
damages
claimed
by
the
respondent.
The
trial
court
dismissed the application vide judgment dated 7.6.2013.
6.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the respondent
filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court
while allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit with costs held
that
the
pleas
taken
by
the
appellant-defendant
regarding
the
contribution made by his grandfather, father and himself in the
purchase of the suit property had been rejected by the High Court
vide judgment dated 12.9.2011 and the same will operate as res
judicata.
The High Court further held that while there was no
evidence for holding the suit property to be a HUF property, the
title deeds of the suit property and the land records stood in
favour of the respondent-plaintiff.
The High Court noted that
the only new plea taken by the defendant in his written statement
was that he was a co-owner vide compromise deed dated 22.10.1997
and held that this plea was barred on the grounds of constructive
res judicata having not been raised earlier in the partition suit
filed by the defendant. The High Court accordingly set aside the
order passed by the trial court and decreed the suit.
7.
Hence, the present appeal by special leave by the defendant-
son.
8.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. Sushil
Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant,
assailed the order passed by the High Court manly on the ground
that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
According to the learned senior
counsel
there
is
categorical
denial
that
the
appellant’s
possession in the suit property is not that of a trespasser but on
the basis of his own right. Learned senior counsel submitted that
for passing a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC there must be
unequivocal admission by the defendant in the pleading.
According
to the learned counsel judgment should not have been passed by
applying the principles of res judicata inasmuch as the issue of
res judicata does not arise in a case of judgment passed under
Order XII Rule 6, CPC.
9.
In order to appreciate the submission made by the learned
senior counsel we would like to quote Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which
reads as under:-
“Judgment on admissions.- (1) Where admissions of fact
have been made either in the pleading or otherwise,
whether orally or in writing, the court may at any stage
of the suit, either on the application of an party or of
its own motion and without waiting for the determination
of any other question between the parties, make such
Order or give such judgment as It may think fit, having
regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1)
a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the
judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the
judgment was pronounced.”
10.
The bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it
confers wide discretion on the court to pass a judgment at any stage of
the suit on the basis of admission of facts made in the pleading or
Page 5
6
otherwise without waiting for the determination of any other question
arose between the parties.
judgment
at any
Since the Rule permits the passing of
stage without
waiting for
determination of
other
question, it follows that there can be more than one decree that may be
passed at different stages of the same suit.
The principle behind
Order XII Rule 6 is to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment so
that either party may get rid of the rival claims which are not in
controversy.
11.
The provision of Order XII Rule 6 has been discussed by this Court
in the case of
Karam Kapahi and Others
vs.
Lal Chand Public
Charitbale Trust and Another, (2010) 4 SCC 753, wherein this Court
observed:-
“39. In the 54th Law Commission Report, an
amendment was suggested to enable the court to
give a judgment not only on the application of a
party but on its own motion. It is thus clear
that the amendment was brought about to further
the ends of justice and give these provisions a
wider sweep by empowering the Judges to use it
“ex debito justitiae”, a Latin term, meaning a
debt of justice. In our opinion the thrust of
the amendment is that in an appropriate case, a
party, on the admission of the other party, can
press for judgment, as a matter of legal right.
However, the court always retains its discretion
in the matter of pronouncing judgment.
40. If the provision of Order 12 Rule 1 is
compared with Order 12 Rule 6, it becomes clear
that the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 is wider
inasmuch as the provision of Order 12 Rule 1 is
limited to admission by “pleading or otherwise
in writing” but in Order 12 Rule 6 the
expression “or otherwise” is much wider in view
of the words used therein, namely: “admission of
fact ... either in the pleading or otherwise,
whether orally or in writing”.
41. Keeping the width of this provision (i.e.
Page 6
7
Order 12 Rule 6) in mind this Court held that
under this Rule admissions can be inferred from
the facts and circumstances of the case (see
Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, SCC
at p. 285, para 8). Admissions in answer to
interrogatories are also covered under this Rule
(see Mullas’s Commentary on the Code, 16th Edn.,
Vol. II, p. 2177).
42. In Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United
Bank of India this Court, while construing this
provision, held that the Court should not unduly
narrow down its application as the object is to
enable a party to obtain speedy judgment.”
12.
Coming back to the instant case there is no dispute that the
plaintiff/respondent filed the suit for possession of the suit
property and also for recovery of Rs.5,55,000/- and future damages
at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month.
The plaintiff/respondent
claimed title in the suit property and averred that the appellant
is in unauthorized occupation of the suit property without any
authority or justification.
In the plaint it was specifically
pleaded that the ownership right in the suit property has already
been decided in favour of the respondent and against the appellant
by judgment and decree dated 8.9.2003 and the appeal filed by the
appellant
Hence,
the
was
also
dismissed
appellant
is
in
vide
illegal
judgment
dated
possession
of
12.9.2011.
the
suit
property.
13.
On
an
application
filed
by
the
plaintiff/respondent
under
Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking a judgment in the suit, the trial
Page 7
8
court
dismissed
the
application
stating
that
there
is
unequivocal admission for passing a judgment in the suit.
no
The
High Court, however, reversed the order passed by the trial court
and
held
that
considering
the
earlier
judgment
deciding
the
ownership of the suit property in favour of the appellant, the
suit for possession ought to have been decreed by the trial court.
Consequently, the High Court decreed the suit.
the
impugned
judgment
passed
by
the
High
Paras 6 and 7 of
Court
are
quoted
hereinbelow:-
“6. The only new aspect urged in the present
written
statement
is
that
the
respondent/defendant claimed that he received
ownership share in the suit property by virtue of
a written compromise entered into before the
police
station
Anand
Vihar
on
22.10.1997,
however, it is noted that the earlier suit, which
was
a
suit
for
partition
filed
by
the
respondent/defendant, the issue as regards the
claim
of
the
respondent/defendant
to
the
ownership rights in the suit property was very
much in issue, and hence the respondent/defendant
had to urge in the earlier proceedings all the
basis of his claims of ownership rights in the
suit property and if that was not done the
respondent/defendant
is
now
barred
by
the
principle of constructive res judicata from
raising any claims which ought to have been urged
in the earlier proceedings.
The principle with
respect to doctrine of res judicata is that there
must be finality achieved to litigation and
parties must not be harassed over and over again
merely by changing certain facts with respect to
the main relief claimed viz., of ownership rights
in the suit property.
7.
In view of the above, the impugned order
Page 8
9
dated 7.6.2013 is completely illegal and the
issues in the present case stand covered against
the respondent / defendant by the principle of
res judicata enshrined in Section 11 CPC. So far
as the relief of possession is concerned, suit of
the plaintiff/petitioner/mother will hence stand
decreed against the respondent/defendant for the
portion
so
in
possession
of
the
respondent/defendant as per the site plant filed.
Since the respondent / defendant / son is
harassing the mother from 1998 and today we are
in the year 2014, this appeal is allowed with
actual cost. Petitioner / plaintiff will file an
affidavit in this Court supported by certificate
of fees of her counsels in this appeal with
respect to the fees paid to the counsels, and
such fees paid will be the cost which will be
payable by the respondent / defendant to the
petitioner / plaintiff. The aforesaid affidavit
accompanied by the certificate of the fees of the
counsels be filed by the petitioner within a
period of four weeks and costs be paid thereafter
within a period of four weeks.”
14.
From
the
reading
of
para
7
of
the
order,
as
quoted
hereinabove, it reveals that the High Court not only decreed the
suit for possession but also directed the plaintiff / respondent
to file an affidavit giving details of the cost of litigation
since the appeal was allowed with cost.
Page 9
10
15.
As discussed hereinabove, there is no dispute with regard to
the law settled by this Court that Order XII Rule 6 confers wide
discretion on the Court to pass judgment either at the stage of
the suit on the basis of admission of the facts made in the
pleadings or otherwise, but the Court shall later on decide the
other questions which arise for consideration in the Suit.
16.
Rule
It is equally well settled that the provision of Order XII
6
of
the
discretionary.
Code
While
is
not
exercising
a
mandatory
power
of
provision
passing
rather
judgment
on
admission made in the pleading or otherwise, the Court must keep
the matter pending for adjudication so far as other issues are
concerned.
17.
Indisputably,
the
plaintiff/respondent
filed
the
suit
for
following relief:-
i) A decree for possession of the suit property;
ii)
A decree for recovery of Rs.5,55,000/- and future damages
Page 10
11
@ Rs.15,000/- per month against the defendant.
18.
So far as the first relief for a decree for possession is
concerned, we are in full agreement with the view taken by the
High Court having regard to the question of ownership already
decided in the earlier suit filed by the defendant/ appellant.
The said issue need not have to be decided afresh and hence on the
basis
of
the
finding
of
ownership
decided
in
favour
of
the
plaintiff/respondent, the suit has to be decreed so far as the
recovery of possession is concerned.
19.
So far as the second question with regard to the entitlement
of the plaintiff/respondent to claim a decree for recovery of a
sum of Rs. 5,55,000/- and future damages @ Rs.15,000/- per month
is concerned, admittedly this question has not been decided either
in the earlier suit or in this suit.
decreeing
the
entire
plaintiff/respondent
suit
already
on
the
decided
In that view of the matter,
basis
in
of
the
ownership
earlier
of the
suit, the
decree for recovery of damages ought not to have been passed by
the High Court.
Page 11
12
20.
However, in the instant case, at the time of admission of this
Special
Leave
Petition,
the
following
order
was
passed
on
12.11.2014:-
“In the event the petitioner deposit a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) in the account
of his mother-Respondent, notice shall be issued
only confining to the question as to whether the
decree passed under the provisions of Order XII
Rule 6 CPC is justified.
The amount to be
deposited within four weeks from today.
Put up the case on 11.12.2014.
Till then, status quo, as on today, shall be
maintained.”
21.
In
already
compliance of
deposited the
the
aforesaid
aforesaid
order,
amount.
the appellant
Hence, taking
had
into
consideration the relationship of the appellant and the respondent
being mother and son, we do not think it proper to again remand
the matter to the trial court for deciding the issue as to the
quantum of damages the respondent is entitled to get from the
appellant for his unauthorized possession of the suit property.
We, therefore, hold that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- would be just
and proper so far as the claim for damages is concerned.
Page 12
13
22.
We, therefore, think it fit not to interfere with the order
passed by the High Court.
This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
However, we allow the appellant to remain in possession of the
suit property till 31.12.2015 on payment of Rs.10,000/- per month
by way of damages for use and occupation of the suit property. It
is made clear that in the event the appellant to
vacate and
hand over
the
fails
vacant possession of the suit
property and also fails in payment of monthly damages as fixed
hereinabove on or before 31.12.2015, respondent will be entitled
to execute the decree for recovery of possession and also for
damages.
.....................................J.
(M.Y. Eqbal)
..................................J.
(Shiva Kirti Singh)
New Delhi
February 12, 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment