O.XII R.6 CPC | Failure To Plead Fraud With Particulars Doesn't Amount To Admission Of Document's Genuineness: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that mere failure of a party, alleging that a document is fraud, to provide particulars of such fraud doesn't lead to a conclusion that the party has admitted the genuineness of such document.

A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed,

“failure to give particulars of fraud should not necessarily lead to admission. The party may subsequently amend the pleadings and add the particulars of fraud.”

The observation comes in an appeal preferred by a widow (Appellant) against dismissal of her suit for partition of alleged Joint Hindu Family property.

The trial court had also passed a judgment on admission in a suit preferred by the Appellant's sister-in-law (Respondent), claiming that the property had devolved upon her by way of a gift deed.

The Appellant had alleged that the gift deed was fraud.

The trial court however exercised powers under Order XII Rule 6, while observing that the defense put forth by the Appellant is moonshine and the Gift Deed had not been challenged.

The High Court noted that the Respondent's suit was contested by the Appellant by alleging that the property is a Joint Hindu Family Property and the alleged Gift Deed is forged and fabricated. It held,

“Though the Appellant has claimed that the Gift Deed is a result of fraud, however, this may be a result of a lack of vocabulary.In substance, she is claiming that the Gift Deed is forged and fabricated.”

It then noted that Order XII of the CPC is based upon admissions made by the parties. It enables the Court to pass a judgment where a party to the suit has, either orally or in writing, admitted the facts and the Court comes to the conclusion that the parties are no longer at issue.

Rule 6 thereof however, prescribes that judgment on admissions is not mandatory and the same is a discretionary power of the Court.

“The use of the expression “may” in the Rule, rather than “shall,” indicates that the power is enabling and permissive, and not obligatory or peremptory. Accordingly, even in the presence of an admission, the Court retains full discretion to determine whether such admission is sufficient and conclusive enough to justify the passing of the judgment and decree,” the Court said.

It added that Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC serves as a procedural mechanism for the expeditious disposal of suits where the entitlement of one party is apparent from clear admissions, but it does not create an absolute right to judgment in every instance of admission.

“The Court must, in each case, satisfy itself that the admission relied upon is complete, definite, and incapable of any other interpretation before invoking the said provision,” it said.

In the case at hand, the Court observed that the trial court was expected to identify the issues that require adjudication and grant an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.

“The Appellant, while filing the written statement, is entitled to claim that such a document is not binding on rights and for the same, the Appellant is not required to file either a counterclaim or a separate suit. Furthermore, the Appellant had also filed a separate suit seeking partition, claiming to be the co-owner of the suit property. Hence, she was claiming right, title or interest in the suit property.”

As such, the Court set aside the trial court order and directed it to adjudicate the issues afresh.

Appearance: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Akshay Makheeja Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Alok Gupta and Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advs. for Appellant; Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv.along with Mr. Laksh Khanna, Ms. Diksha Suri, Mr. Pallav Arora and Riya Jain, Advs. for Respondent

Case title: Mrs Shumita Sandhu v. Mrs Tani Sandhu Bhargava

Case no.: RFA(OS) 49/2024

Click here to read order