Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Order
The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that courts can grant a decree on admission only when the admission is clear, unequivocal and unconditional. The Court set aside a Delhi High Court judgment that decreed recovery of ₹44.79 lakh against a deceased family member based on an alleged admission in his written statement. The Bench held that the dispute involved substantial questions of fact that required a full-fledged trial.
The judgment was delivered on May 29, 2026, by a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi in Pushpa & Ors. v. Dayawati & Ors. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi authored the judgment.
Background of the Family Dispute
The dispute arose from the sale of nearly 31 bighas and 9 biswas of agricultural land belonging to a Hindu family in August 2007 for ₹15.31 crore.
According to the record, Shis Ram, the family patriarch, received the entire sale consideration in his personal account.
Dayawati filed CS (OS) No. 2502 of 2009 before the Delhi High Court seeking recovery of ₹45 lakh with interest, partition of family properties and permanent injunction against her parents and siblings. She claimed a share in the proceeds from the sale of ancestral agricultural land.
On March 25, 2010, Daya Ram, defendant No.3 and father of the present appellants, filed a written statement. He described the suit as collusive and stated that every family member had received ₹3 crore under a family settlement from the total sale proceeds.
The High Court passed a preliminary decree for partition on August 17, 2011. A Division Bench later modified the decree and held that each party was entitled to a one-sixth share after one family member relinquished her interest.
The High Court passed the final decree for immovable properties on September 3, 2015 but kept the recovery claim pending. It framed issues on recovery and interest and directed the parties to lead evidence.
Application Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC
Dayawati later filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking a decree on admission against defendant No.3.
She argued that Daya Ram admitted receiving ₹3 crore. Since the Court later fixed each party’s share at ₹2,55,20,833, he had allegedly received ₹44,79,167 in excess and should refund that amount.
After the suit was transferred to the District Court because of changes in pecuniary jurisdiction, the Additional District Judge dismissed the application. The Court held that the matter involved triable issues that required evidence.
The Delhi High Court later reversed that order in revision and decreed recovery of ₹44,79,167 with interest at six per cent per annum.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appearing for the appellants, Advocate Rakesh Kumar argued that the High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. He submitted that the trial court had correctly identified several triable issues.
The appellants argued that no clear or unequivocal admission of liability existed. They contended that respondent No.2 had received the entire sale consideration and that any recovery claim should lie against him.
Counsel for respondent No.1 defended the High Court’s judgment. He argued that defendant No.3 had admitted receiving ₹3 crore and that the admission justified a decree on admission.
Supreme Court on Admissions
The Supreme Court examined the scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC along with Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Bench observed that the provision enables courts to grant speedy relief only when the admission is categorical, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal.
Relying on Vikrant Kapila v. Pankaja Panda and Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd., the Court noted that a judgment on admission permanently deprives a defendant of a trial. Therefore, courts must exercise this power cautiously.
Statement Did Not Amount to Admission
The Supreme Court found that Daya Ram’s statement about receiving ₹3 crore formed part of his defence based on a family settlement.
The Bench held that the statement did not amount to an admission that he had received more than his lawful share or that he owed money to respondent No.1.
The Court further observed that judges must read pleadings as a whole instead of isolating a single sentence.
After examining the written statement, the Bench found that Daya Ram consistently disputed the plaintiff’s claim and asserted that he had received only his lawful share.
Disputed Questions Required Trial
The Court held that several disputed factual questions remained unresolved.
These included whether unequal distribution had actually occurred, whether defendant No.3 held money on behalf of respondent No.1 and whether she possessed an enforceable claim against him.
The plaint itself sought relief jointly against several defendants and did not specifically allege that defendant No.3 alone was liable.
The Bench also noted that the High Court had earlier framed issues and directed the parties to lead evidence. Having recognised the existence of disputed questions, it could not later bypass the trial by invoking Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
High Court Exceeded Revisional Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court held that the Additional District Judge correctly exercised discretion by refusing to grant a decree on admission.
The Bench further ruled that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reassessing disputed facts and substituting its own interpretation merely because another view was possible.
It also rejected the argument that inconsistent pleadings in another suit could independently justify a decree on admission. Such inconsistencies may become relevant during trial but cannot replace proof.
Appeal Allowed
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the alleged admission was neither categorical nor unequivocal. The controversy therefore required adjudication through evidence.
The Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated April 16, 2019 and restored the trial court’s order dismissing the application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC.
The Bench clarified that its observations were confined to the present appeal and directed the trial court to decide the suit independently and strictly in accordance with law. It also disposed of all pending applications.
