$~8

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 29.02.2024
+ CS(OS) 135/2022, I.A. 3735/2022, I.A. 13767-68/2022
MR AMIT AGARWAL ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Mr. Akshit
Mohan, Ms. Shreya Shree Singh,
Advs.
versus
MR TANUJ AGARWAL ..... Defendant
Through: Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Ms. Akriti
Tyagi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
: JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL)

I.A. 13766/2022
1. This is an application under Order XV Rule 1 read with Order XII
Rule 6 of CPC seeking preliminary decree declaring the plaintiff as ½ owner
of the property located at D-421, Palam Extension, Harijan Basti, Sector 7,
Dwarka - 110075 (“suit property”).
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the co-owner of the suit
property along with defendant (his brother in law - wife’s brother) by virtue
of a registered sale deed dated 18.06.2014 which was executed through
General Power of Attorney (“GPA”) holder. The sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff is registered as Registration No. 7,384 on Page Nos. 94 to 99 in
Book No. 1 of Volume 7,744 at the office of Sub-Registrar IX, New Delhi
and makes him the owner of one half of undivided share of the suit property.
Further, the defendant is the owner of the other ½ undivided share in the suit
property. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has been executed on the
same day by the plaintiff in his own favour by virtue of a GPA.

Digitally Signed CS(OS) 135/2022 Page 1 of 6

By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:20.03.2024
11:40:23
 3. In the written statement, the stand taken by the defendant is that the
defendant has paid the entire consideration for purchase of the suit property
and since the plaintiff was subjecting his own wife to extreme cruelty and
asked her to demand money from her brothers, under extreme pressure the
defendant was forced to purchase half of the suit property in favour of the
plaintiff. Paras 3, 4 and 5 of the written statement are relevant and read as:
“3. Over the years, plaintiff has subjected his wife, i.e., the
defendant's sister to extreme cruelty and has from time to time
asked her to demand money from her brothers on the threat of
being thrown out from the matrimonial house. Under this extreme
pressure, the defendant was forced to purchase the suit property
and also has given money to the plaintiff many times.

4. Despite having met the financial demands of the Plaintiff, his

greed remained unsatisfied. He threw the sister of the defendant out
of the matrimonial home and is now disipitating all his assets to
deprive his wife of her rightful entitlements in accordance with her
status. To the knowledge of the Defendant, one of such properties
that the plaintiff sold is Basement No. A-2, Block A-1, situated in
Marble Arch Apartment, 9, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi.

4. On 28.04.2022 the Plaintiff has filed the divorce case before the
Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi in pursuance of the
aforementions objective.

5. In the year 2011, the Plaintiff demanded money as a condition to

keep his wife happy in the matrimonial home. The answering
Defendant was thus compelled to buy the half share of the suit
property and he paid the entire sale consideration. It was agreed
that the rent received by the Plaintiff from lessee M/s MRG
Fashions Pvt. Ltd. was to be used for the house and for his wife
which however he has never done.
Without prejudice to the right of the Defendant and admitting
anything it is submitted that the present suit has been filed with an
ulterior motive in order to sellout the partitioned portion of the suit

Digitally Signed CS(OS) 135/2022 Page 2 of 6

By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:20.03.2024
11:40:23
 property so that the Plaintiff could show his net worth as NIL/zero
before the matrimonial Court in order to defeat the legal rights of
his wife. The wife has thus a claim on the property in lieu of
maintenance.

Intention apart, the plaintiff cannot claim full rights title and
interest in the suit property given that the sale consideration was
paid by the defendant for the benefit of his sister who is the wife of
the defendant.”
4. It is to be noted that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has been
admitted by the defendant in the admission denial of documents.
5. The purpose of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is to avoid unnecessary trial
and pass a decree once there are clear and unambiguous admissions on
behalf of the defendant. The admissions as stated in the Order XII Rule 6
cannot be by any stretch of imagination mean that the defendant has to state
“I hereby admit the averments in the plaint”. The clear and unequivocal
statement/admissions have to be inferred and culled out from a meaningful
reading of the pleadings. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vikrant
Kapila v. Pankaja Panda, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1298 has observed as
under:-
33. Admission in pleadings means a statement made by a
party to the legal proceedings, whether oral, documentary,
or contained in an electronic form, and the said statement
suggests an inference with respect to a fact in issue between
the parties or a relevant fact. It is axiomatic that to
constitute an admission, the said statement must be clear,
unequivocal and ought not to entertain a different view.
Coming to admission in pleadings, these are averments

Digitally Signed CS(OS) 135/2022 Page 3 of 6

By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:20.03.2024
11:40:23
 made by a party in the pleading, viz., plaint, written
statement, etc., in a pending proceeding of admitting the
factual matrix presented by the other side. To constitute a
valid admission in pleading, the said admission should be
unequivocal, unconditional, and unambiguous, and the
admission must be made with an intention to be bound by it.
Admission must be valid without being proved by adducing
evidence and enabling the opposite party to succeed without
trial. A court, while pronouncing a judgment on admission,
keeps in its perspective the requirements in Order VIII Rule
5, Order XII Rule 6 and Order XV Rules 1 & 2, CPC read
with Sections 17, 58 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
6. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri
Kumar, (2022) 10 SCC 496 has observed as under:-
“24. Thus, legislative intent is clear by using the word
“may” and “as it may think fit” to the nature of admission.
The said power is discretionary which should be only
exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of
facts and documents are on record, otherwise the court can
refuse to invoke the power of Order 12 Rule 6. The said
provision has been brought with intent that if admission of
facts raised by one side is admitted by the other, and the
court is satisfied to the nature of admission, then the parties
are not compelled for full-fledged trial and the judgment
and order can be directed without taking any evidence.
Therefore, to save the time and money of the court and

Digitally Signed CS(OS) 135/2022 Page 4 of 6

By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:20.03.2024
11:40:23
 respective parties, the said provision has been brought in
the statute. As per above discussion, it is clear that to pass a
judgment on admission, the court if thinks fit may pass an
order at any stage of the suit. In case the judgment is
pronounced by the court a decree be drawn accordingly and
parties to the case is not required to go for trial.”
7. Admittedly, the defendant’s only stance in the written statement is
that the consideration amount towards the purchase of the suit property has
been paid by the defendant. However, the defendant has not filed any suit
for declaration seeking cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff
or seeking declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is
invalid/void document.
8. Ms. Rajkotia, learned counsel states that she has filed documents
showing payments made to the plaintiff.
9. A perusal of the account details show that the account is registered in
the name of M/s India Trading Corporation and not of the defendant.
10. Assuming the best case of the defendant that the defendant is able to
show that he had paid the entire sale consideration for purchase of the suit
property and consequently, ½ share of the property was benami in the hands
of the plaintiff, even then this Court cannot set aside the sale deed in favour
of the plaintiff, in the absence of prayer/counter-claim to that effect. The
only consequential relief that has to follow is to pass a preliminary decree.
11. From the aforesaid narration, the following facts emerge:
a) there is a duly registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff making
the plaintiff owner of undivided ½ share in the suit property.
b) The defendant admits that the sale deed is in favour of the plaintiff

Digitally Signed CS(OS) 135/2022 Page 5 of 6

By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:20.03.2024
11:40:23
 for ½ but in the defence only states that the amounts for purchase of
the suit property were paid by the defendant.
c) There is no prayer/counter-claim by the defendant seeking
cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the absence
of any challenge, the sale deed cannot be set aside.
12. In view of the aforesaid, I am clear that the admission vis-a-vis the
title of the plaintiff is clear and unequivocal and the plaintiff is entitled to a
preliminary decree of partition holding that the plaintiff is owner of half
undivided share in property No. D - 421, Palam Extension, Harijan Basti,
Sector 7, Dwarka- 110075.
13. For the said reasons, the application is allowed and disposed of.
CS(OS) 135/2022
14. Since a preliminary decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant holding the plaintiff as ½ undivided owner of the suit
property, at request of learned counsel for the plaintiff for appointment of an
Local Commissioner (“LC”), Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Adv. (Mobile No.-
9910170303) is appointed as LC to visit the suit property and suggest modes
of partition by metes and bounds.
15. The fee of the LC is fixed at Rs. 1 lakh to be paid by the plaintiff. The
LC shall give notice of the visit to the parties. In case it is required, the SHO
shall provide police protection to the LC.
16. List on 23.07.2024 for report of the LC.

JASMEET SINGH, J
FEBRUARY 29, 2024/DM
(Corrected and released on 18th March, 2024)

Digitally Signed CS(OS) 135/2022 Page 6 of 6

By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:20.03.2024
11:40:23