Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Judgment on admissions — Admission “otherwise” than pleadings — Admissions made in criminal proceedings/FIR/complaint can be relied upon by Civil Court — Decree for possession against caretaker/licensee — Concurrent findings by three Courts — Scope of interference under Article 136 — Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Where the defendant, in a complaint lodged by him before police and in criminal proceedings arising therefrom, categorically admitted that the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs and that he was inducted merely as a caretaker/chowkidar, such admissions constituted clear and unequivocal admissions within the meaning of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Trial Court was justified in partly decreeing the suit for possession on the basis of such admissions without waiting for full trial. The Supreme Court held that admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC need not be confined to pleadings and may be oral or written and made “otherwise” also. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and High Court did not warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
— Paras 12 to 18.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Nature and scope — Admission may be oral or written — No particular form necessary — Object of provision explained — Speedy judgment on admitted claims.
The Supreme Court reiterated that Order XII Rule 6 CPC empowers the Court to pass judgment on admissions made either in pleadings or otherwise, whether oral or written. No particular form of admission is necessary. The object of the provision is to enable a party to obtain speedy justice to the extent of the admitted claim. The Court referred to Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120, and held that the Rule should not be narrowly construed.
— Paras 13 to 16.
Evidence — Admission — FIR/Police complaint — Mere statement that contents were not read over by police — Does not amount to denial of contents — Appreciation of evidence.
The High Court rightly distinguished between a statement that papers were not read over by police and a categorical denial of contents of the complaint/FIR. In absence of any denial of ownership of plaintiffs or denial of defendant’s status as caretaker either in examination-in-chief or cross-examination, the Courts below rightly relied upon the admissions contained in the complaint and FIR.
— Paras 26 to 31.
Licence/Caretaker possession — Termination of licence — No right to continue in possession — Decree for vacant possession justified.
Once ownership of the plaintiffs and status of defendant as caretaker/licensee stood admitted, continuation of possession after termination of licence was unjustified. A caretaker or chowkidar has no independent right, title or interest in the property and cannot indefinitely continue in possession.
— Paras 5, 32 and 33.
