Facts: The Petitioner, an 82-year-old original allottee of a tenement in Navi Mumbai, discovered that his property had been fraudulently transferred. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 allegedly used an impersonator to execute and register a Deed of Apartment and a subsequent Conveyance Deed in 2016. Upon unearthing the fraud, CIDCO revoked the NOC and permission to sell, noting the deception. The Petitioner filed a civil suit for a declaration that these deeds were null, void, and not binding. During the proceedings, Defendant No. 4 filed a Written Statement wherein he stated that he "came to know" that the person from whom he purchased the premises was an impersonator and that the Petitioner was the real owner. Based on these statements, the Petitioner moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for a judgment on admission.
Procedural Posture: The Trial Court rejected the Petitioner's application, holding that the admissions were not clear or unconditional and were based on knowledge gained after the fact rather than direct admission of the plaintiff's claim. The Petitioner challenged this rejection before the Bombay High Court via a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issue: Whether the statements made by Defendant No. 4 in his Written Statement, acknowledging the impersonation and the Petitioner's ownership, constitute "admissions" sufficient to warrant a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the statements constituted a clear and unequivocal admission that no valid transaction took place between the Petitioner and Defendant No. 4.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Order XII Rule 6 is an enabling and discretionary provision intended to provide speedy justice where no real controversy exists. It observed that admissions under this rule can be express or implied. In this case, Defendant No. 4’s repeated assertions that he was "deceived by an impersonator" and that "the Plaintiff is the real owner", coupled with the absence of a specific denial regarding the lack of consideration paid to the actual Petitioner, amounted to an admission of the core claim. The Court found that requiring a trial for the cancellation of instruments, when the defendant himself admits they were executed by an impersonator, would be a futile exercise. The Court clarified that while the civil decree is passed on admission, it does not determine the criminal guilt of the parties regarding the alleged forgery.