Ambiguous Admissions Cannot Replace Trial in Partition Suits: Delhi High Court

Partition suits occupy a unique position in civil litigation. Unlike simple money recovery or possession suits, they involve intricate questions of title, succession, shares, possession, boundaries, and income, often spanning generations. Recognising this complexity, courts have consistently held that summary decrees on admissions must be granted with extreme caution in partition matters.

In Anu (Since Deceased) v. Suresh Verma (Since Deceased) & Ors., the Delhi High Court reaffirmed this principle by holding that ambiguous, disputed, or incomplete admissions cannot justify a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court made it clear that unless admissions are clear, unequivocal, and unconditional, a full trial is indispensable.

This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of procedural discipline, especially at a time when litigants increasingly seek shortcut remedies to bypass evidence and trial.

Background of the Dispute

The appeal arose from a family partition dispute concerning properties allegedly forming part of the intestate estate of late Om Prakash Verma and late Chandra Wati, the parents of the parties.

The plaintiff (appellant) sought:

1. Partition of immovable properties, and
2. Recovery of her alleged share in rental income derived from those properties.

Initially, the suit covered seven properties, but during proceedings, the plaintiff restricted her claim to three properties located at Raghubarpura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.

The plaintiff asserted:

• That she was one of six legal heirs,
• That the suit properties belonged to her parents, and
• That the properties generated substantial rental income for which she was entitled to a 1/6th share.

The defendants, however, disputed:

• The ownership and acquisition of the properties,
• The area and description of the properties,
• The quantum of rental income, and
• Even the number of heirs, contending that the son of a pre-deceased brother was a necessary party.

Procedural History and the Turning Point

Framing of Issues

The trial court framed several issues, including:

• Whether the properties were liable to partition,
• Whether an oral family settlement existed,
• Whether certain properties were barred under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.

Deletion of Issues and Its Legal Effect

By an order dated 17 December 2015, the learned Single Judge:

• Deleted issues relating to benami ownership after finding that the plaint lacked foundational pleadings on title, and
• Observed that the plaintiff had failed to establish how her parents acquired ownership of several properties.
• Crucially, these findings attained finality as they were never challenged.

Later, the defendants abandoned their plea of oral family settlement, which prompted the plaintiff to move an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, contending that nothing survived for trial.

Plaintiff’s Argument for Summary Decree

The plaintiff argued that:

• The defendants’ pleadings and affidavits contained admissions regarding ownership and shares,
• Registered relinquishment deeds executed during the pendency of the suit reinforced her entitlement, and
• Since the defence of oral settlement was abandoned, the Court should grant a decree on admissions without trial.

The plaintiff relied heavily on the proposition that admissions by co-heirs bind all parties in a partition suit.

Issue

• Do the pleadings disclose such clear and unequivocal admissions that a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be passed in a partition suit, or do substantial disputes still require adjudication by evidence?

Order XII Rule 6 CPC

Order XII Rule 6 CPC empowers courts to pass judgment based on admissions, but jurisprudence has consistently laid down strict conditions:

1. Admissions must be clear and unambiguous,
2. They must be unconditional, and
3. They must leave no triable issue.

The provision is discretionary, not mandatory. Courts are not bound to pass a decree merely because an admission exists.

Why the Court Rejected the Claim of “Clear Admissions”

1. Dispute as to Identity and Extent of Property

One property was claimed by the plaintiff to measure 250 square yards, while the defendants asserted it measured 165 square yards. Such a dispute goes to the root of partition and cannot be resolved without evidence.

2. Unresolved Title and Acquisition

Despite earlier judicial findings, the plaintiff still failed to plead or establish:

• Title documents, or
• The mode of acquisition by her parents.

The Court reiterated the settled rule:

“The plaintiff has to succeed on her own feet.”

Admissions by defendants cannot cure a fundamental defect in pleadings.

3. Disputed Heirship and Shares

The status of a grandson (son of a pre-deceased son) remained unresolved. Until succession itself is conclusively determined, shares cannot be crystallised, making a summary decree legally impermissible.

4. Rental Income Claims Were Contested

The plaintiff claimed rental income of ₹2.5 lakhs per month, which the defendants disputed. Determination of:

• Existence of tenancy,
• Quantum of rent, and
• Entitlement to mesne profits

are matters squarely requiring evidence.

5. Effect of Relinquishment Deeds Required Trial

The defendants had produced registered relinquishment deeds, but the Court held that:

• Their legal effect,
• Their context, and
• Whether they cured earlier defects

were matters for adjudication, not automatic admissions justifying a decree.

Partition Suits Are Inherently Unsuitable for Summary Disposal

The Court emphasised that partition suits:

• Involve multiple overlapping factual and legal issues,
• Require determination of title, possession, boundaries, shares, and income, and
• Cannot be reduced to mechanical adjudication on selective admissions.

Unless parties are ad idem on all material aspects, summary decrees undermine procedural justice.

Parties Must Be Ad Idem”

For Order XII Rule 6 CPC to apply, parties must agree on:

• What property is to be partitioned,
• Who the heirs are,
• What their respective shares are, and
• What income flows from the property?

In the present case, none of these elements was undisputed.

Key Takeaways

1. Ambiguous admissions are no admissions in law.
2. Partition suits demand evidence unless facts are admitted beyond doubt.
3. Admissions cannot replace missing pleadings on the title.
4. Relinquishment deeds do not automatically justify a partition decree.
5. Order XII Rule 6 CPC is an exception, not the rule.

Conclusion

Delhi High Court’s ruling is a timely reminder that procedural shortcuts cannot substitute substantive justice, particularly in partition suits. The judgment reinforces that clarity, completeness, and consensus are prerequisites for decrees on admissions.

By refusing to dilute the standard for Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Court preserved the integrity of civil trials and reaffirmed that partition litigation must proceed on evidence unless the factual foundation is rock-solid.

In doing so, the Court ensured that justice is not hurried at the cost of truth, a principle that lies at the heart of civil adjudication.