TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 151 CPC for judgment on admission and for the appointment of a Receiver of the suit property. 3. The appellant filed suit for partition, rendition of account and for permanent injunction in the year 1991. The appellant was married to late Subhash Chand on 10.12.1990. But Subhash Chand passed away soon thereafter on 20.3.1991. The appellant claimed interest in the property of late Subhash Chand as his wife to the extent of 50%. The other respondents have been made parties to the suit in view of the fact that certain properties were held jointly by late Subhash Chand with his brother. Thus according to the appellant, she and respondent No. 3 are entitled to 50% share each in the estate of late Subhash Chand. 4. The controversy does not rest at this claim. It is a further claim of the appellant that the estate of Smt. Parkash the first wife of late Subhash Chand who passed away on 16.7.1988, as claimed by respondent No. 3 in the written statement should also be treated as part of the estate of Sh.Subhash Chand as Smt. Parkash had no independent source of income and the assets in her name were actually the assets of late Subhash Chand. Thus in that estate of Smt. Parkash also the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of 1/4th of the estate of late Smt. Parkash. This was so as if the claim of the appellant that the estate of Smt. Parkash was actually the estate of Late Subash Chand was to be believed then the appellant would have 1/2 share and not 1/4 share in the said Annexure 'A'. However, the answer to the said query from the learned Senior counsel for the appellant was that though it was factually so but there could not be a preliminary decree passed in terms of the impugned order as the admissions have to be read as a whole. In nut-shell the contention is that either the appellant also gets there 1/2 share if respondent No. 3 is getting 1/2 share or nobody gets anything till the decision of the suit. In our view such a stand of the appellant cannot be sustained for reasons set out hereinafter. 8. Mr. V.B. Andley, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant cited a number of authorities on the law laid down as to the circumstances under which the court should exercise powers to pass judgment on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code. Learned Sr. Counsel referred to the judgment of Motabhoy Mulla Essabhoy Vs. Mulji Haridas, AIR 1915 PC 2 to contend that admission in plead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 419. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant also referred to the judgment in Smt. Radha Lal Vs . M/s Jessop Company AIR 1992 Delhi 331 and Dena Bank Vs . M/s Bindal Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. AIR 1992 Delhi 171 in support of the same contention. 9. Mr. Andley, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant then referred to the case of Kanti Singh (surpa) to contend that the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code should be invoked only at certain stages of the proceedings and not at every stages in the suit. In the case of Kanti Singh (supra) issues had been framed and dates of trial were fixed and the learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that without recording evidence of the parties. relief cannot be granted at that juncture. Learned Sr. Counsel further referred to another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Punjab National Bank and another Vs. S. Kartar Singh 66 (1997) DLT 857 to contend that once evidence has started then it incumbent on the Court to go through the entire trial and judgment on admission as envisaged in Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code cannot be granted at that stage. 10. Mr. Arun Mohan, learned senior counsel for the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an onerous task to establish in respect of Annexure 'A' that the items mentioned in the said Annexures were not the estate of late Smt. Parkash. A further fact also to be kept in mind is the very nature of items mentioned in it consisting of Jewellery of ladies and personal belongings apart from shares and debentures. Be that as it may a dispute has been raised and thus in our considered view only 50% of the estate of late Smt. Parkash can be stated to be the un-disputed share to which respondent No. 3 would be entitled Similarly if the will propounded by respondent No. 3 is ultimately proved to have validly been revoked by late Subhash Chand in that case also respondent No. 3 would be entitled to 50% share of the estate. 13. Admissions made by the appellant to the aforesaid extent cannot be stated to be conditional. If the appellant succeeds respondent No. 3 gets the aforesaid share and if the appellant fails the complete estate goes to respondent No. 3 and the appellant gets nothing. Thus for the appellant to contend that respondent No. 3 should get nothing till she gets her disputed 50% share is a dog in the manger policy. The appellant wants to keep on the sword of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 12 Rule 6 of the Code are couched in very wide language and the powers of the court are accordingly quite wide and not circum subscribed by any stage in the suit. Undoubtedly to invoke said provision, the admission must be clear, un-ambiguous, un-conditional and unequivocal. 17. We may add at this stage that during course of disposing of the application of respondent No. 3 by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has been constrained to observe about the large number of cases on the original side and in view thereof has come to the conclusion that respondent No. 3 is entitled to judgment on admission. In our considered view this cannot be a good reason for grant of decree under Order 12 Rule 6 and to this extent the observations made by the learned single Judge cannot be held to be laying down good law. 18. We are thus of the considered view that the respondent was rightly held entitled to judgment on admission. On the extent of the share the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge is liable to be modified to the extent that respondent No. 3 is entitled to 1/2 share each in properties described in Annexure 'A' and Annexure 'B'. 19. The res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
