Shri Gurbir Singh Alag & Anr vs Shri Robinder Singh Alag & Anr on 1 July, 2026

July 7, 2026

Delhi High Court

Shri Gurbir Singh Alag & Anr vs Shri Robinder Singh Alag & Anr on 1 July, 2026

1. This is an application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC on behalf of
the Plaintiffs against Defendant No.1 for Judgment on Admissions made by
Defendant No.1 in their pleadings and the documents annexed therewith.

SPONSORED

2. Since the present application is one under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, it
is necessary to highlight the averments made in the Plaint, the nature of
admissions in the written statement, the documents which have been
admitted and the manner in which they have been admitted, without which it
would not be proper to adjudicate upon the application.

3. The Suit bearing CS(OS) 583/2019 has been filed by the Plaintiffs for
declaration, possession, mesne profit/damages and injunction in respect of
the property comprising of the First Floor of the Property bearing No. C-
460, Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110024, alongwith one room above the
mezzanine and the store room at the terrace of the Second Floor (hereinafter
referred to as the „Suit Property‟). The Plaintiffs have also prayed for a
declaration that the Conveyance Deed dated 27.12.1995 executed by
Defendant No.2 does not in any manner affect the terms and conditions of
the concluded family arrangements and settlements including the
Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 21.06.1991 already entered into in
respect of the Suit Property conveying / conferring rights in the Suit
Property jointly upon the Plaintiffs and Late Mrs. Gurjit Kaur who is the
mother of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1.

4. The averments made in the Plaint are as under:

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 2 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52

i. It is stated that the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 are the sons of
Late Major Amolak Singh, who passed away on 03.05.1962 at NEFA
Border, Arunachal Pradesh, leaving behind his wife – Mrs. Gurjit
Kaur, who passed away on 10.03.2017. The Plaintiffs and Defendant
No.1 are the sons of Late Major Amolak Singh and Late Mrs. Gurjit
Kaur. It is stated that the Suit Property was given on lease vide a
Lease Deed dated 30.07.1976 by the Land and Development Office,
which is Defendant No.2, in favour of Mrs. Gurjit Kaur, Plaintiffs and
Defendant No.1. A copy of the Lease Deed shows that the Lease Deed
has been granted in favour of Mrs. Gurjit Kaur for self and on behalf
of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1, who are sons of Late Major Amolak
Singh. It is stated that the Suit Property is 325 sq. yards comprising of
a two storied building.

ii. It is stated in the Plaint that the Suit Property was in the name of an
HUF – Mrs. Gurjit Kaur (KARTA) comprising the Plaintiffs,
Defendant No.1 and Mrs. Gurjit Kaur. It is stated that the said HUF
continued to be in existence till 1984.

iii. It is stated in the Plaint that the Defendant No.1 had chosen to shift to
Middle East in 1982 and had married out of community and expressed
his desire to separate from the said HUF and accordingly, a
Memorandum of complete partition was executed on 14.04.1984,
recording the oral partition effected earlier amongst Plaintiffs,
Defendant No.1 and Mrs. Gurjit Kaur. It is stated that since the Suit
Property being incapable of physically divided by metes and bounds,
the parties continued to be co-owners of the same with 1/4th undivided
share each in the Suit Property and entitled to separate income arising

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 3 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
therefrom. It is stated that the parties jointly continued to enjoy the
Suit Property and income from the Suit Property as 1/4th co-owners
till 1991 when the Defendant No.1 expressed his desire to sell his
1/4th share in the Suit Property and disassociate himself from the other
co-owners of the Suit Property.

iv. The Plaint further records that in accordance with the desire of the
Defendant No.1 to sell his share in the Suit Property and to
completely disassociate himself from others in respect of the Suit
Property, all the four co-owners entered into an oral arrangement
amongst themselves by which it was agreed that the terrace floor over
the First Floor i.e. the unconstructed Second Floor of the Suit
Property would be sold towards the total share of the Defendant No.1
and pursuant thereto an Agreement to Sell dated 29.05.1991 was
entered into in respect of the unconstructed Second Floor with the
Purchaser with the understanding that the entire sale proceeds shall go
to the Defendant No.1 towards his complete share in the Suit
Property.

v. The Plaint records that the factum of the Oral Family Settlement and
the sale of the unconstructed Second Floor was recorded by means of
a Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 21.06.1991, inter alia,
acknowledging and confirming the sale of the unconstructed Second
Floor of the Suit Property in favor of the Purchaser. It was further
recorded, accepted and acknowledged that from the entire sale
proceeds, a build up Second Floor of Property bearing No. D-145,
Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi was purchased for the Defendant No.1 for
his residence and balance of the sale proceeds were also received by

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 4 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
the Defendant No.1 only who has acknowledged the receipt of the
same.

vi. It is stated along with that the said Memorandum of Family
Settlement dated 21.06.1991, the Defendant No. 1 also executed a
Deed of Relinquishment dated 21.06.1991, inter alia, affirming the
settlement arrived at between the parties and the execution of the
Memorandum of Family Settlement and reaffirmed relinquishing /
releasing his rights and interests in the Suit Property in favour of the
Plaintiffs and Mrs. Gurjit Kaur absolutely and equally forever and that
neither him nor none of his heirs will have any right, title or interest in
the Suit Property in the future. However, it is the case of the Plaintiffs
that despite several requests the Deed of Relinquishment was not got
registered by the Defendant No.1.

vii. The Plaint records that in part performance, the possession of the
unconstructed Second Floor was handed over to the Purchaser and it
was also agreed and undertaken that the necessary Sale Deed shall be
executed in favor of the Purchaser. It was further agreed that, in the
event, the authorities declare the plot as freehold, then the parties shall
take all the necessary steps in that respect. It is stated that the
Agreement to Sell was executed with the Purchaser in accordance
with the then prevalent practice, however, the Sale Deed with respect
to the portion of the Suit Property could not be executed at that time.
It is stated that the execution of the Sale Deed became possible only
after the year 1992 when the Government of India came out with a
policy for converting lease hold property to free hold property. It is
stated that as per practice, subsequent to the conversion, the necessary

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 5 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
Conveyance Deed was to be executed and registered in the name of
the recorded owners in the records of Defendant No.2. It is stated that
pursuant to the approval of the Application for converting the
property into freehold, the Conveyance Deed dated 27.12.1995 was
executed for and on behalf of the President of India in favor of the
mother, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1. However, the
execution of the registered Conveyance Deed dated 27.12.1995 in the
names of the original four persons, in whose favour the leasehold
rights had been transferred, i.e. the mother, the Plaintiffs and the
Defendant No. 1 herein, was never intended to, and did not in any
manner supersede, affect or alter the already binding and concluded
family arrangements and settlements, Relinquishment Deed, etc., as
the same had been totally and fully acted upon by all the parties,
including the Defendant No. 1 who had totally severed himself from
the property had had given up his all his rights, title and interests, in
Suit Property.

viii. The Plaint records that pursuant to the conversion of the property to
the freehold and execution of the Conveyance Deed dated 27.12.1995,
the Sale Deed in respect of Second Floor which was by then
constructed by the Purchaser was executed on 07.06.1996 by the
mother – Mrs. Gurjit Kaur and the Plaintiffs and on behalf of the
Defendant No.1 by Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Shahpuri, wife of the
Purchaser Mr. Daljit Singh Shahpuri as General Power of Attorney of
the Defendant No. 1, in favor of the Purchaser.
ix. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that pursuant to the sale of the terrace
floor of the Suit Property as recorded in Memorandum of Family

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 6 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
Settlement dated 21.06.1991, the Plaintiffs and Mrs. Gurjit Kaur were
left with rights in the remaining portion of the Suit Property as co-
owners having 1/3rd each and continued to enjoy the same without no
claim, right, title or interest from the Defendant No.1. It is stated that
the said Memorandum of Family Settlement and Relinquishment
Deed in respect of the Suit Property was duly acted upon and the
income from the same was openly enjoyed by the Plaintiffs and Mrs.
Gurjit Kaur without any interference from the Defendant No.1 and in
fact, the First Floor of the Suit Property was leased out from time to
time by all the said three parties and that all income from the same
was enjoyed by all the three co-owners equally.
x. The Plaint records that sometime in 2013, the Defendant No.1 who
was residing in the Middle East till 2010-11 requested the Plaintiffs
and the mother to permit him to reside on the First Floor of the said
property along with Mrs. Gurjit Kaur, the mother, who was occupying
the First Floor along with the Plaintiffs for a short time as the
Defendant No.1 intended to move back to Middle East in the near
future and the landlord of the tenanted premises, where he was then
residing, had requested him to vacate the tenanted premises. It is the
case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant No.1 reiterated and
reaffirmed the family settlement of 1991 and accepted that he had no
right in the Suit Property and only wish to stay in the Suit Property
without any rights and with the permission and wishes of the
Plaintiffs and Mrs. Gurjit Kaur for a short time and would move out
of the premises if so desired or demanded by the Plaintiffs or Mrs.
Gurjit Kaur without any demur, complaint etc. It is stated that

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 7 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
believing the assurances of the Defendant No.1 to be true and correct,
the Plaintiffs and the mother Mrs. Gurjit Kaur permitted the
Defendant No.1 to stay in the First Floor along with the mother only
till such time go back to Middle East and with a clear understanding
that he or any of his family member do not have and shall not claim
any right, title or interest in the Suit Property. It is the case of the
Plaintiffs that Defendant No.1 is still in occupation of the First Floor
of the Suit Property alongwith one room above the mezzanine and the
store room at the terrace of the Second Floor.
xi. The Plaint records that, on being enquired about the plants of shifting
to Middle East, the Defendant No.1 started avoiding the topic or
giving some vague answers without any specific timeline, and
subsequently, started harassing the mother. It is stated that the mother

– Mrs. Gurjit Kaur passed away on 10.03.2017 leaving behind a
registered Will dated 21.04.2006 as her last and final Will.
xii. It is stated that after the demise of the mother – Mrs. Gurjlt Kaur,
when the Plaintiffs again asked the Defendant No.1 to vacate the
premises under his unauthorized and illegal occupation i.e. the First
Floor of the Suit Property alongwith one room above the mezzanine
and the store room at the terrace of the Second Floor, the Defendant
No.1 started giving lame excuses and making false claims of having
an alleged share in the Suit Property.

xiii. The Plaint records that the Will dated 21.04.2006 of mother – Late
Mrs. Gurjit Kaur has been duly accepted and acted upon by the parties
wherein the assets, movable and immovable, mentioned therein had
been distributed between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1. It is

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 8 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
stated that the Will dated 21.04.2006 had reiterated the fact of the
division of the HUF and the sale of the terrace floor i.e. the Second
Floor of the Suit Property, which was constructed by the Purchaser
and proceeds thereof, was given to the Defendant No.1 and the
Defendant No.1 relinquished his rights, title and interest in the Suit
Property, bequeathing his share in the Suit Property. It is stated that
the Will dated 21.04.2006 has been accepted and acted upon by the
parties, and the Defendant No.1 has no right to make any further
claim in the Suit Property. It is stated that the Defendant No.1 is
creating nuisance due to which the Plaintiffs have been compelled to
file the present Suit.

5. The Defendant No.1 has filed the written statement which was
amended pursuant to the Order dated 16.02.2024. The Defendant No.1 has
raised a preliminary objection by stating that the Memorandum of Family
Settlement dated 21.06.1991 reiterating the earlier partition, and the
unregistered Deed of Relinquishment dated 21.06.1991 pale into
insignificance by virtue of Conveyance Deed dated 27.12.1995 wherein the
Suit Property was conveyed in favour of the mother – Mrs. Gurjit Kaur,
Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1. It is stated that without being the owner, the
Defendant No.1 could not have relinquished any share in the Suit Property.
It is further stated that it is the case of the Plaintiffs that Defendant No.1 has
relinquished his share in the Suit Property vide the Deed of Relinquishment
dated 21.06.1991 but on the other hand the Sale Deed dated 07.06.1996 has
also been executed on behalf of Defendant No.1 through purported Power of
Attorney. It is stated that if the Sale Deed has been executed in the year
1996 on behalf of Defendant No.1 then the so-called Relinquishment Deed

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 9 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
has no value. It is further stated in the written statement that the Will dated
21.04.2006 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It is stated that one
of the two witnesses namely Ishwar Chand Garg who is supposed to be the
Advocate having enrolment No.P-228/1972, however, the member directory
as released by Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association depicts that
no such name exists.

6. It is the case of Defendant No.1 that the Defendant No.1, being the
elder son, was managing the entire household and was also taking care of
mother and education of the Plaintiffs herein. It is stated that after
construction of the house, certain disputes arose with the then tenant, who
was occupying the ground floor, and with the efforts of Defendant No.1, a
Suit for eviction was filed and decreed against the said tenant. It is stated
that in the year 1982, the Defendant No.1 got a job offer from Doha, Qatar
and considering the financial condition of the family, the Defendant No.1
relocated to Doha, Qatar. It is stated that the Defendant No.1 before leaving,
handed over all the necessary documentation qua the Suit Property. It is
stated that certain blank sheets duly signed by Defendant No.1 were also
handed over to the family which would help in leasing out the Suit Property
in his absence and with the sole intention of making sure that his family
leads a comfortable life in his absence.

7. It is further stated in the written statement that Plaintiff No.1 got
married in the year 1993 and Plaintiff No.2 got married in the year 1995. It
is stated that mother – Mrs. Gurjit Kaur, continued her stay at the Suit
Property with Plaintiff No.1 and his wife in a separate room. It is stated that
subsequently, on 27.12.1995, the Defendant No.2 executed a Conveyance
Deed which also included Defendant No.1. It is stated somewhere in the

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 10 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
year 2000, the Plaintiff No.1 got the first floor of the Suit Property vacated
from the tenants and shifted the mother on the first floor. It is stated that in
the year 2008-09, due to economic recession, the Defendant No.1 suffered a
major financial setback and decided to shift to India. The Defendant No.1
along with his wife came to India in 2010 and started residing at the First
Floor of the Suit Property, alongwith his mother which was not at the liking
of Plaintiff No.1.

8. It is further stated in the written statement that the Plaintiff No.1
insisted the Defendant No.1 that instead of settling at the Suit Property, he
should temporarily settle somewhere else so that the structure of the Suit
Property can be demolished completely and re-constructed. It is stated that
the Plaintiff No.1 also told the Defendant No.1 that he too will be shifting
out for the purpose of re-construction. It is stated that in fact a builder was
also identified by the Plaintiff No.1. It is stated that the cost of the
construction was to be split between the brothers. It is stated that certain
more blank papers along with certain cheques were also signed. It is stated
that, thereafter, the Defendant No.1, having blind faith upon his younger
brother, handed over the said blank papers along with certain cheques duly
signed, and relocated on rent to Greater Kailash at R-189, 1st Floor, New
Delhi with his wife and children, awaiting the beginning of re-construction.
However, it is stated that despite lapse of considerable time, the re-
construction did not commence and the matter was being delayed by
Plaintiff No.1.

9. It is stated in the written statement that after some time, the Defendant
No.1 was informed by Plaintiff No.1 that that the prior set of documents and
cheques have been misplaced and further a new set of documents would be

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 11 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
required. It is stated that the Defendant No.1 was already paying a
substantial amount of money as rent, however, believing that the
construction of the Suit Property would start, the Defendant No.1 provided
one more set of documents. It is stated that since the construction did not
commence, the Defendant No.1 alongwith his wife and son shifted back at
the Suit Property in the year 2013. It is stated that the mother Mrs. Gurjit
Kaur passed away on 10.03.2017 and after about a year of her demise, the
Defendant No.1 sought for return of documents as no construction
commenced and when started pushing harder for document, police
complaints were filed against Defendant No.1 by the Plaintiffs. It is stated
that instructions to stop payments were issued by Defendant No.1 to the
bank. It is stated that Defendant No.1 received a Legal Notice from one
Noni Builders Pvt. Ltd. regarding dishonor of cheques under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is stated that, thereafter,
negotiations were entered into and fresh cheques were issued and handed
over by Defendant No.1.

10. A perusal of written statement reveals that dispute with the Noni
Builders Pvt. Ltd. is still pending before the competent Court. Other
criminal complaints are also pending between the Plaintiffs and Defendant
No.1 before various Departments and Courts.

11. It is the case of Defendant No.1 that blank documents which had been
given by Defendant No.1 has been misplaced by Plaintiff No.1.
Admission/denial of documents has taken place. In the affidavit of
admission/denial of documents, as far as Memorandum of Complete
Partition dated 14.04.1984, Memorandum of Family Settlement dated
21.06.1991 and Relinquishment Deed dated 21.06.1991 are concerned, the

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 12 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
Defendant No.1 has admitted the signatures in these documents but has
denied the contents of the documents by stating that signatures have been
taken on blank papers.

12. Two applications have been filed one being I.A. 11149/2020 filed
under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC on behalf of the Plaintiffs against Defendant
No.1 for Judgment on Admissions made by Defendant No.1 in pleadings,
written statement and in the admission/denial of documents, and the other
application being I.A. 16018/2022 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d)
of CPC by the Defendant No.1 seeking rejection of the Plaint.

13. As far as I.A. 11149/2020 which is an application under Order XII
Rule 6 of CPC, the relevant paragraphs of the said application are being
reproduced as under:

“2. That the Defendant No.1 has filed his Written
Statement along with the supporting documents in the
present case. Even though the Defendant No. l in the
present Suit vide his Written Statement has tried to
render a selective narration of facts misinterpreted in
such a fashion that suits his convenience for the time
being. However in the documents filed by the
Defendant No. 1 along with the written statement
several facts have been admitted by the Defendant
No.1 unequivocally. Also in the Affidavit of admission /
denial filed along with the Written Statement, the
defendant has admitted his signatures on the following
documents:

                                          (i) Memorandum        of   complete    partition   dated
                                          14.04.1984

                                          (ii) Memorandum       of   Family     Settlement   dated
                                          21.06.1991

(iii) Deed of Relinquishment dated 21.06.1991

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 13 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
Also, the defendant has unequivocally admitted the
Agreement to Sell dated 29.05.1991 in the present suit.

3. That the Defendant No. 1 has also admitted the Sale
Deed dated 07.06.1996 executed pursuant to the
Agreement to Sell dated 29.05.1991, thereby
acknowledging and admitting the entire case of the
Plaintiffs. In fact, the Defendant No. 1 is left with no
defense in the light of the categorical admissions made
by him in the present suit.

4. It. is submitted that the Defendant No. 1 was party to
the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated
21.06.1991 which he has signed on his own volition
and has relinquished his rights, title and interest in the
suit property and pursuant thereto he is left with no
rights or title in the Suit Property.

5. Further, the Defendant No. 1 has also admitted that
pursuant to the death of the mother Late Mrs. Gurjit
Kaur the movable and the immovable assets that came
to the share of the Defendant No.1 as per the
registered Will dated 21.04.2006 were also received by
him. The receipts are duly admitted by the Defendant
in the present Suit. However maliciously and
malafidely, it is now being falsely alleged by the
Defendant No.1 that he has no knowledge about the
registered Will of the mother whereas the defendant all
along had the knowledge of the duly registered last and
final Will dated 21.04.2006 duly executed by the
mother and has received his share under the will.

6. That the conduct of the Defendant No.1 is dishonest,
malafide and malicious. The Defendant No. 1 who was
all throughout in the knowledge and possession of all
the documents duly signed and executed by him along
with other family members is estopped in law from
falsely and recklessly denying the same. Also, the

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 14 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
defences raised by the Defendant No. 1 in his written
statement are absolutely sham and patently false which
deserve to be rejected outrightly.”

14. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that once the signatures have been
admitted by Defendant No.1, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree. It is the
case of the Plaintiffs that Defendant No.1 in his written statement and
supporting documents has admitted several facts unequivocally.

15. Further, Defendant No.1 in his affidavit of admission/denial of
documents filed along with the written statement has admitted his signatures
on the Memorandum of Partition dated 14.04.1984, Memorandum of Family
Settlement dated 21.06.1991, Deed of Relinquishment dated 21.06.1991.
Further, Defendant No.1 has unequivocally admitted the Agreement to Sell
dated 29.05.1991 filed in the present Suit.

16. Learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs state that Defendant No.1
has also admitted the Sale Deed dated 07.06.1991 executed pursuant to the
Agreement to Sell dated 29.05.1991, thereby acknowledging the entire case
of the Plaintiffs and leaving Defendant No.1 with no defence in light of the
admissions made by him in the present Suit.

17. It is stated that Defendant No.1 has also received movable and
immovable assets that came to the share of Defendant No.1 in pursuance of
the registered Will dated 21.04.2006. However, even after receiving the said
assets, Defendant No.1 has malafidely denied his knowledge of the
existence of the registered Will dated 21.04.2006.

18. It is further stated that Defendant No.1 has placed on record an Action
Taken Report filed by SI Rakesh Kumar, Police Station Defence Colony on
an alleged complaint made in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 15 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
Court by Defendant No.1. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Defendant No.1
has admitted to his signatures in the Action Taken Report on the
Memorandum of complete Partition dated 14.04.1984, Memorandum of
Family Settlement dated 21.06.1991, Relinquishment Deed dated
21.06.1991 and the Agreement to Sell dated 29.05.1991.

19. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs states that in view of the
aforementioned admissions made by Defendant No.1 in the present Suit and
in light of admissions in various documents including the Action Taken
Report filed by Defendant No.1 himself provides sufficient basis to pass a
Judgment on the basis of these admissions in favour of the Plaintiffs and
against Defendant No.1.

20. Per contra, learned Counsel for Defendant No.1 contends that the
blank papers were given on regular intervals and those blank papers have
been misused and there was no intention on the part of Defendant No.1 to
relinquish any share in the Suit Property. He states that signatures have been
admitted. He further contends that that it is only the signatures that are
admitted by Defendant No.1 and not the contents of the documents which
contain the signatures of Defendant No.1. He states that admitting only to
the signatures on these documents do not prove the veracity of the
documents and the matter will have to go for trial and will have to be proved
in accordance with law. He states that Defendant No.1 has not admitted any
of the facts mentioned in the Plaint which would entitle the Plaintiffs a
Judgment on admissions. He further contends that the Will dated 21.04.2006
is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the fact that the Will has not
been challenged by Defendant No.1 would not amount to an admission on
the part of Defendant No.1 accepting the contents of the Will.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 16 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52

21. Defendant No.1 in its written statement has clearly stated that by
virtue of the Conveyance Deed dated 27.12.1995, all the parties along with
their mother became the owners of 25% undivided share each in the Suit
Property. It is only by virtue of this Conveyance Deed that Defendant No.1
along with the Plaintiffs were finally vested with the title of the Suit
Property and before this day, it was not in hands of the parties to sell,
transfer, alienate the ownership of the Suit Property.

22. Material on record indicates that Defendant No.1 in its affidavit of
admission/denial filed along with the written statement has only admitted
the signatures on the Memorandum of complete Partition dated 14.04.1984,
Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 21.06.1991, Deed of
Relinquishment dated 21.06.1991. Further, Defendant No.1 has admitted the
Agreement to Sell executed on 29.05.1991 in favour of Mr. Daljit Singh
Shahpuri.

23. Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC which provides for Judgment on
admissions is meant for expeditious disposal of appropriate cases where
admissions are unconditional, unequivocal and unambiguous or when the
admission is based upon undisputed inference. Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC
reads as under:-

“6. Judgment on admissions.–

(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in
the pleading or otherwise; whether orally or in writing,
the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the
application of any party or of its own motion and
without waiting for the determination of any other
question between the parties, make such order or give
such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to
such admissions.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 17 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52

(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule
(1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the
judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which
the judgment was pronounced.”

24. The law on Judgment on admission has been settled by the Apex
Court by way of judicial pronouncements. The Apex Court in Uttam Singh
Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120, has
observed as follows:

“11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended
that Order 12 Rule 6 comes under the heading
“Admissions” and a judgment on admission could be
given only after due opportunity to the other side to
explain the admission, if any, is given; that such
admission should have been made only in the course of
the pleadings or else the other side will not have an
opportunity to explain such admission, that even
though the provision reads that the court may at any
stage of the suit make such order as it thinks fit, the
effect of admission, if any, can be considered only at
the time of trial; that the admission even in pleadings
will have to be read along with Order 8 Rule 5(1) CPC
and the court need not necessarily proceed to pass an
order or a judgment on the basis of such admission but
call upon the party relying upon such admission to
prove its case independently; that during pendency of
other suits and the nature of contentions raised in the
case, it would not be permissible at all to grant the
relief before trial as has been done in the present case;
that the expression “admissions” made in the course of
the pleadings or otherwise will have to be read
together and the expression “otherwise” will have to
be interpreted ejusdem generis.

12. As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not
say anything more than what the legislature itself has

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 18 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
said when the said provision came to be amended. In
the Objects and Reasons set out while amending the
said Rule, it is stated that “where a claim is admitted,
the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the
plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The
object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a
speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to
which according to the admission of the defendant, the
plaintiff is entitled”. We should not unduly narrow
down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to
enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where the
other party has made a plain admission entitling the
former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever
there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which
it is impossible for the party making such admission to
succeed.”

25. The Apex Court in Himani Alloys Limited v. Tata Steel Limited,
2011 (15) SCC 273, has observed as follows:

“11. It is true that a judgment can be given on an
“admission” contained in the minutes of a meeting.
But the admission should be categorical. It should be a
conscious and deliberate act of the party making it,
showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule
6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory
nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on
examination of the facts and circumstances, has to
exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a
judgment on admission is a judgment without trial
which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant,
by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore unless the
admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional,
the discretion of the Court should not be exercised to
deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest the
claim. In short the discretion should be used only when
there is a clear “admission” which can be acted upon.
(See also Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 19 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
Bank of India [(2000) 7 SCC 120] , Karam Kapahi v.
Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust [(2010) 4 SCC 753
: (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 262] and Jeevan Diesels and
Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha [(2010) 6 SCC
601 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 745] .) There is no such
admission in this case.”

26. The Apex Court in S.M. Asif v. Virender Kumar Bajaj, (2015) 9 SCC
287, has observed that the power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is
discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Apex Court
also held that when Defendant has raised objections which go to the root of
the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion under Order
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. The Relevant portion of the said judgment reads
as under:

“8. The words in Order 12 Rule 6 CPC “may” and
“make such order …” show that the power under
Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. Judgment on admission is
not a matter of right and rather is a matter of
discretion of the court. Where the defendants have
raised objections which go to the root of the case, it
would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion
under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The said rule is an
enabling provision which confers discretion on the
court in delivering a quick judgment on admission and
to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties
of his opponent’s claim.”

27. The Apex Court in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396,
has observed as under:

“21. There is yet another provision under which it
is possible for the court to pronounce judgment on

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 20 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
admission. This is contained in Rule 6 of Order 12
which provides as under:

“6. Judgment on admissions.–(1) Where
admissions of fact have been made either in the
pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in
writing, the court may at any stage of the suit,
either on the application of any party or of its own
motion and without waiting for the determination
of any other question between the parties, make
such order or give such judgment as it may think
fit, having regard to such admissions.

(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under
sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in
accordance with the judgment and the decree
shall bear the date on which the judgment was
pronounced.”

22. This rule was substituted in place of the old rule
by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,
1976. The Objects and Reasons for this amendment are
given below:

“Under Rule 6, where a claim is admitted, the
court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the
plaintiff and to pass a decree on the admitted
claim. The object of the rule is to enable a party
to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent
of the relief to which, according to the admission
of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. The rule
is wide enough to cover oral admissions. The rule
is being amended to clarify that oral admissions
are also covered by the rule.”

28. The Apex Court in Hari Steel & General Industries Limited v. Daljit
Singh, 2019 (20) SCC 425, after placing reliance upon Himani Alloys Ltd

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 21 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
(supra), S.M. Asif (supra) and Balraj Taneja (supra), has observed as
follows:

27. In the judgment in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan
[Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396] ,
while considering the scope of Order 8 Rule 10 and
Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, this Court has held that the
court is not to act blindly upon the admission of a fact
made by the defendant in the written statement nor
should the court proceed to pass judgment blindly
merely because a written statement has not been filed
by the defendant traversing the facts set out by the
plaintiff in the plaint filed in the court.

28. In the aforesaid judgment, while considering the
scope of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, post amendment by
amending Act, 1976 this Court has held as under:

(Balraj Taneja [Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999)
8 SCC 396] , SCC p. 408, paras 21-23)

“21. There is yet another provision under which it
is possible for the court to pronounce judgment on
admission. This is contained in Rule 6 of Order 12
which provides as under:

„6. Judgment on admissions.–(1) Where
admissions of fact have been made either in
the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or
in writing, the court may at any stage of the
suit, either on the application of any party or
of its own motion and without waiting for the
determination of any other question between
the parties, make such order or give such
judgment as it may think fit, having regard to
such admissions.

(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced
under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn
up in accordance with the judgment and the

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 22 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
decree shall bear the date on which the
judgment was pronounced.‟

22. This rule was substituted in place of the old
rule by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 1976. The Objects and Reasons for this
amendment are given below:

„Under Rule 6, where a claim is admitted,
the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment
for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on the
admitted claim. The object of the rule is to
enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment
at least to the extent of the relief to which,
according to the admission of the defendant,
the plaintiff is entitled. The rule is wide
enough to cover oral admissions. The rule is
being amended to clarify that oral
admissions are also covered by the rule.‟

23. Under this rule, the court can, at an
interlocutory stage of the proceedings, pass a
judgment on the basis of admissions made by the
defendant. But before the court can act upon the
admission, it has to be shown that the admission
is unequivocal, clear and positive. This rule
empowers the court to pass judgment and decree
in respect of admitted claims pending
adjudication of the disputed claims in the suit.”

29. By applying the ratio laid down by this Court
in the aforesaid judgments, it is to be held that
there are no categorical and unconditional
admissions, as claimed by the respondent-

plaintiffs. In view of the stand of the appellants
that, pp. 3 and 4 of the agreement dated 3-5-2005
are tampered and their signatures are fabricated,
when specific issue is already framed, it cannot be
said that there are categorical and unconditional

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 23 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
admissions by the appellants. Mere admission of
entering into arrangement/contract on 7-4-2005
and 3-5-2005 itself cannot be considered in
isolation, without considering the further
objections of the appellants that certain pages in
the agreement are fabricated. In case the
appellants prove that the agreement is fabricated
as claimed, post-trial it goes to the root of the
case on the claim of the respondent-plaintiffs.

Hence, we are of the view that the aforesaid
judgments fully support the case of the
appellants.”

29. A perusal of the judgments passed by the Apex Court shows that
unless admissions relied on are clear and categorical, Order XII Rule 6 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a discretionary one and can be
exercised only in cases where the admissions relied upon are clear,
categorical, unconditional, unequivocal and leave no room for doubt or
controversy. The object of the provision is to enable a Court to pronounce
judgment without requiring a full-fledged trial in cases where the essential
facts stand admitted and no substantial dispute survives between the parties.
However, the said provision cannot be invoked merely because an admission
exists in some form; rather, the admission must be of such a nature that it
entitles the applicant to the relief claimed without the necessity of further
evidence or adjudication.

30. It is equally well settled that a judgment on admission cannot be
rendered where the alleged admission is capable of more than one
interpretation or where the admission itself gives rise to questions requiring
examination during trial. The Court, while exercising powers under Order
XII Rule 6 CPC, must remain mindful of the fact that the provision is

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 24 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
intended to advance the cause of justice and not to foreclose a genuine
defence. Consequently, where triable issues arise from the pleadings or
where the legal effect of an admitted fact itself remains disputed, the matter
must ordinarily proceed to trial.

31. The Defendant No.1 has explained his signatures on the documents by
stating that these signatures were taken on blank papers. The Suit is still at a
nascent stage and this Court is of the opinion that, at this stage, this Court
must not embark on conducting a mini trial and only after the trial is
conducted, interference can be drawn and a judgment can be rendered.

32. A perusal of the pleadings reveals that Defendant No. 1 has
consistently disputed the contents of the documents in question and has
specifically denied the Plaintiffs’ interpretation thereof. Defendant No. 1 has
further disputed the nature of the rights allegedly created by the said
documents and has questioned their efficacy in conferring title or interest in
the Suit Property. Therefore, while the signatures on the documents may not
be in dispute, the rights and obligations purportedly arising therefrom
remain seriously contested between the parties.

33. In the considered view of this Court, the controversy between the
parties is not confined to the mere execution of the documents. The real
dispute pertains to the nature of the documents, the circumstances in which
they came to be executed, the intention of the parties, the legal effect of the
recitals contained therein, and the extent of rights, if any, flowing therefrom.
These are all matters which necessarily require evidence to be led by the
parties and cannot be conclusively determined merely on the basis of
admissions contained in the pleadings.

34. This Court is also of the view that the admissions relied upon by the

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 25 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
Plaintiffs do not satisfy the threshold contemplated under Order XII Rule 6
CPC. The alleged admissions are neither so complete nor so unequivocal as
to entitle the Plaintiffs to a decree without trial. On the contrary, the stand
taken by Defendant No. 1 demonstrates that substantial and bona fide
disputes survive for adjudication. Any determination of the Plaintiffs’
entitlement would necessarily require appreciation of documentary and oral
evidence and examination of the rival contentions advanced by the parties.

35. In such circumstances, rendering a judgment at this stage would
amount to prejudging issues that are required to be adjudicated after a full
trial. The Court cannot, under the guise of exercising powers under Order
XII Rule 6 CPC, deprive a party of its valuable right to establish its defence
through evidence, particularly when the dispute pertains to title,
interpretation of documents and the legal consequences flowing therefrom.

36. This Court, therefore, finds that the admissions relied upon by the
Plaintiffs fall short of the standard required for the exercise of jurisdiction
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The issues raised in the present proceedings
are neither admitted nor free from controversy and consequently warrant
adjudication on merits after the parties have been afforded an opportunity to
lead evidence.

37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
present application. The same is accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that
the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present
application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the
case, which shall be considered independently at the stage of trial.
I.A. 16018/2022 in CS(OS) 583/2019

38. This Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC has been

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 26 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
filed by the Defendant No.1 seeking rejection of the Plaint.

39. It is stated by the Counsel for the Defendant No. 1 that the documents
relied upon by the Plaintiffs, namely the Memorandum of Partition, Family
Settlement, and Relinquishment Deed, are unregistered documents. The said
documents purport to create, extinguish, assign, or declare rights in
immovable property and, therefore, were compulsorily registrable under the
provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. In the absence of registration, the
same cannot be received in evidence for proving title or any right in the Suit
Property.

40. It is argued that since the Plaintiffs’ claim of ownership is founded
entirely upon the aforesaid unregistered documents, the same are legally
inadmissible for the purpose of establishing title in the Suit Property.
Consequently, the Plaintiffs have failed to disclose any legally enforceable
right in respect of the Suit Property.

41. It is stated by the Counsel for the Defendant No. 1 that the Plaintiffs
have not placed on record any registered title document evidencing their
ownership. On the contrary, Defendant No. 1 relies upon the registered
Conveyance Deed dated 27.12.1995, the execution and existence whereof is
not disputed. Therefore, the Plaintiffs seek to defeat a registered title solely
on the basis of unregistered and inadmissible documents.

42. He states that the title of the Plaintiffs to the Suit Property is,
therefore, seriously disputed and remains unestablished. In such
circumstances, the Plaintiffs could not have maintained the present Suit
without first seeking an appropriate declaration of title. A bare suit premised
upon an unproven title is not maintainable in law.

43. It is therefore the case of Defendant No. 1 that the present Suit is

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 27 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
premature and misconceived, as the foundational issue of title remains
unresolved. In the absence of a prayer for declaration and in view of the
Plaintiffs’ inability to establish title through admissible evidence, no
enforceable cause of action accrues in favour of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly,
the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it fails to disclose a cause of action and
the reliefs claimed are barred by law.

44. Per Contra, the Counsel for the Plaintiffs states that the contention of
Defendant No. 1 that the documents relied upon by the Plaintiffs are
inadmissible and cannot be looked into is wholly misconceived. Defendant
No. 1 has himself admitted the execution and his signatures on the said
documents. Having admitted the existence and execution of the documents,
Defendant No. 1 cannot, at the threshold stage, seek rejection of the plaint
by selectively disputing their legal effect. Such issues pertain to the
evidentiary value and effect of the documents and can only be adjudicated
upon after the parties lead evidence. The same cannot constitute a ground for
rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

45. He states that it is settled law that while considering an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to confine itself to the
averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon therein.
Questions relating to admissibility, proof, evidentiary value, or the ultimate
effect of documents are matters for trial and cannot be conclusively
determined at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

46. The Counsel for the Plaintiffs further states without prejudice, the
Memorandum of Family Settlement relied upon by the Plaintiffs does not
require compulsory registration if it merely records a family arrangement

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 28 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
already arrived at between the parties. The law relating to family settlements
is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kale & Ors. v. Deputy
Director of Consolidation & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 119, wherein it was held
that a bona fide family arrangement intended to preserve family peace and
resolve disputes ought to be given full effect and that a memorandum
recording an already completed family settlement does not require
registration.

47. The Counsel for the Plaintiffs states that a document itself creates
rights in immovable property or merely records a pre-existing settlement is a
mixed question of fact and law which necessarily requires examination of
the document, surrounding circumstances, and conduct of the parties. Such
an exercise cannot be undertaken at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

48. He finally submits that the objections raised by Defendant No. 1 raise
disputed questions of fact and law which cannot be decided in proceedings
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The application is therefore liable to be
dismissed.

49. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the parties
and perused the material placed on record.

50. The principal contention of Defendant No. 1 is that the Plaintiffs
derive their title from the Memorandum of Partition, Family Settlement and
Relinquishment Deed, which are unregistered documents and, therefore,
cannot be relied upon in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908,
the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. It is further contended that in the
absence of a declaration of title, the present Suit is not maintainable and
does not disclose a cause of action.

51. The aforesaid contentions cannot be accepted at this stage.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 29 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52

52. At the outset, it is trite law that while considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to confine itself to the
averments made in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the
Plaintiffs. The defence raised by the Defendants and disputed questions of
fact cannot be examined at this stage. The Court is not expected to conduct a
mini trial or adjudicate upon issues requiring evidence.

53. The law relating to rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is
crystallised through various judgments of the Apex Court. The Apex Court
in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn., (2005) 7
SCC 510, has held as under:

“13. Before dealing with the factual scenario, the
spectrum of Order 7 Rule 11 in the legal ambit needs
to be noted.

14. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1
SCC 557] it was held with reference to Order 7 Rule
11 of the Code that the relevant facts which need to be
looked into for deciding an application thereunder are
the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise
the power at any stage of the suit — before registering
the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at
any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the
purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a)
and (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments
in the plaint are the germane; the pleas taken by the
defendant in the written statement would be wholly
irrelevant at that stage.

15. In I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
[(1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question
to be decided while dealing with an application filed
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real
cause of action has been set out in the plaint or
something purely illusory has been stated with a view

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 30 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.

16. The trial court must remember that if on a
meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the
power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care
to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If
clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first
hearing by examining the party searchingly under
Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V.
Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467] .)

17. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be
considered, and the whole plaint has to be read. As
was observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi v.
Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3 SCC 487] only a part
of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of
action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be
rejected.

18. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property
[(1998) 7 SCC 184] it was observed that the averments
in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out
whether clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 was
applicable.

19. There cannot be any compartmentalisation,
dissection, segregation and inversions of the language
of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is
adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of
interpretation according to which a pleading has to be
read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not
permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to
read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the
substance and not merely the form that has to be
looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it
stands without addition or subtraction of words or

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 31 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
change of its apparent grammatical sense. The
intention of the party concerned is to be gathered
primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings
taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne
in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted
to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.

20. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles the reliefs
sought for in the suit as quoted supra have to be
considered. The real object of Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Code is to keep out of courts irresponsible law suits.
Therefore, Order 10 of the Code is a tool in the hands
of the courts by resorting to which and by searching
examination of the party in case the court is prima
facie of the view that the suit is an abuse of the process
of the court in the sense that it is a bogus and
irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under Order 7
Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised.”

54. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs has relied upon the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in Kale & Ors (supra) wherein the Apex Court has
observed as under:

“9. Before dealing with the respective contentions
put forward by the parties, we would like to discuss in
general the effect and value of family arrangements
entered into between the parties with a view to
resolving disputes once for all. By virtue of a family
settlement or arrangement members of a family
descending from a common ancestor or a near relation
seek to sink their differences and disputes, settle and
resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once
for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about
complete harmony and goodwill in the family. The
family arrangements are governed by a special equity
peculiar to themselves and would be enforced if
honestly made. In this connection, Kerr in his valuable
treatise Kerr on Fraud at p. 364 makes the following

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 32 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
pertinent observations regarding the nature of the
family arrangement which may be extracted thus:

“The principles which apply to the case of
ordinary compromise between strangers do not
equally apply to the case of compromises in the
nature of family arrangements. Family
arrangements are governed by a special equity
peculiar to themselves, and will be enforced if
honestly made, although they have not been meant
as a compromise, but have proceeded from an
error of all parties, originating in mistake or
ignorance of fact as to what their rights actually
are, or of the points on which their rights actually
depend.”

The object of the arrangement is to protect the family
from long-drawn litigation or perpetual strifes which
mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create
hatred and bad blood between the various members of
the family. Today when we are striving to build up an
egalitarian society and are trying for a complete
reconstruction of the society, to maintain .and uphold
the unity and homogeneity of the family which
ultimately results in the unification of the society and,
therefore, of the entire country, is the prime need of the
hour. A family arrangement by which the property is
equitably divided between the various contenders so as
to achieve an equal distribution of wealth instead of
concentrating the same in the hands of a few is
undoubtedly a milestone in the administration of social
justice. That is why the term “family” has to be
understood in a wider sense so as to include within its
fold not only close relations or legal heirs but even
those persons who may have some sort of antecedent
title, a semblance of a claim or even if they have a spes
successionis so that future disputes are sealed for ever
and the family instead of fighting claims inter se and

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 33 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
wasting time, money and energy on such fruitless or
futile litigation is able to devote its attention to more
constructive work in the larger interest of the country.
The courts have, therefore, leaned in favour of
upholding a family arrangement instead of disturbing
the same on technical or trivial grounds. Where the
courts find that the family arrangement suffers from a
legal lacuna or a formal defect the rule of estoppel is
pressed into service and is applied to shut out plea of
the person who being a party to family arrangement
seeks to unsettle a settled dispute and claims to revoke
the family arrangement under which he has himself
enjoyed some material benefits. The law in England on
this point is almost the same. In Halsbury’s Laws of
England, Vol. 17, Third Edition, at pp. 215-216, the
following apt observations regarding the essentials of
the family settlement and the principles governing the
existence of the same are made:

“A family arrangement is an agreement
between members of the same family, intended to
be generally and reasonably for the benefit of the
family either by compromising doubtful or
disputed rights or by preserving the family
property or the peace and security of the family by
avoiding litigation or by saving its honour.

The agreement may be implied from a long
course of dealing, but it is more usual to embody
or to effectuate the agreement in a deed to which
the term “family arrangement” is applied.

Family arrangements are governed by
principles which are not applicable to dealings
between strangers. The court, when deciding the
rights of parties under family arrangements or
claims to upset such arrangements, considers
what in the broadest view of the matter is most for

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 34 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
the interest of families, and has regard to
considerations which, in dealing with transactions
between persons not members of the same family,
would not be taken into account. Matters which
would be fatal to the validity of similar
transactions between strangers are not objections
to the binding effect of family arrangements.”

10. In other words to put the binding effect and the
essentials of a family settlement in a concretised form,
the matter may be reduced into the form of the
following propositions:

“(1) The family settlement must be a bona fide
one so as to resolve family disputes and rival
claims by a fair and equitable division or
allotment of properties between the various
members of the family;

(2) The said settlement must be voluntary and
should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue
influence;

(3) The family arrangement may be even oral
in which case no registration is necessary;

(4) It is well settled that registration would be
necessary only if the terms of the family
arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also,
a distinction should be made between a document
containing the terms and recitals of a family
arrangement made under the document and a
mere memorandum prepared after the family
arrangement had already been made either for the
purpose of the record or for information of the
court for making necessary mutation. In such a
case the memorandum itself does not create or
extinguish any rights in immovable properties and

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 35 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
therefore does not fall within the mischief of
Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is,
therefore, not compulsorily registrable;

(5) The members who may be parties to the
family arrangement must have some antecedent
title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the
property which is acknowledged by the parties to
the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the
settlement has no title but under the arrangement
the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles
in favour of such a person and acknowledges him
to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title
must be assumed and the family arrangement will
be upheld and the courts will find no difficulty in
giving assent to the same;

(6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or
possible, which may not involve legal claims are
settled by a bona fide family arrangement which
is fair and equitable the family arrangement is
final and binding on the parties to the settlement.”

xxx

25. It would be seen that when the name of
Appellant 1 Kale was mutated in respect of the khatas
by the Naib Tahsildar by his order dated December 5,
1955 which is mentioned at p. 4 of the paper-book
Respondents 4 & 5 filed an application for setting
aside that order on the ground that they had no
knowledge of the proceedings. Subsequently a
compromise was entered into between the parties a
reference to which was made in the compromise
petition filed before the revenue court on August 7,
1956. A perusal of this compromise petition which
appears at pp. 15 to 18 of the paper-book would
clearly show two things — (1) that the petition clearly

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 36 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
and explicitly mentioned that a compromise had
already been made earlier; and (2) that after the
allotment of the khatas to the respective parties the
parties shall be permanent owners thereof. The
opening words of the petition may be extracted thus:

“It is submitted that in the above suit a
compromise has been made mutually between the
parties.

It would appear from the order of the Assistant
Commissioner, First Class, being Annexure 4 in writ
petition before the High Court, appearing at p. 19 of
the paper-book that the parties sought adjournment
from the Court on the ground that a compromise was
being made. In this connection the Assistant
Commissioner, First Class, observed as follows:

“On January 11, 1956 Mst Har Pyari and Ram
Pyari gave an application for restoration in the court
of Naib Tahsildar on the ground that they were not
informed of the case and they were aggrieved of his
order passed on December 5, 1955. On this
application he summoned the parties and an objection
was filed against the restoration application. The
parties sought adjournment on the ground that a
compromise was being made.

The parties filed compromise before the Naib
Tahsildar according to which two lists were drawn,
one of these is to be entered in the name of Kale and
the other in the name of Har Pyari and Ram Pyari.”

This shows that even before the petition was filed
before the Assistant Commissioner informing him that
a compromise was being made, the parties had a clear
compromise or a family arrangement in contemplation
for which purpose an adjournment was taken. These
facts coupled together unmistakably show that the

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 37 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
compromise or family arrangement must have taken
place orally before the petition was filed before the
Assistant Commissioner for mutation of the names of
the parties in pursuance of the compromise. The facts
of the present case are therefore clearly covered by the
authorities of this Court and the other High Courts
which laid down that a document which is in the nature
of a memorandum of an earlier family arrangement
and which is filed before the court for its information
for mutation of names is not compulsorily registrable
and therefore can be used in evidence of the family
arrangement and is final and binding on the parties.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Respondent 1
as also the High Court were, therefore, wrong in
taking the view that in absence of registration the
family arrangement could not be sustained. We might
mention here that in taking this view, the High Court of
Allahabad completely overlooked its own previous
decisions on this point which were definitely binding
on it. This, therefore, disposes of the first contention of
the learned counsel for the respondents that as the
family arrangement having been reduced into the form
of a document which was presented before the
Assistant Commissioner was unregistered it is not
admissible and should be excluded from
consideration.”

55. The Family Agreement was not required to be compulsorily
registered. The effect of the Family Agreement or whether such an
arrangement was actually entered into between the Parties or not will have
to be seen in trial. The Plaint can sustain only on the basis of Family
Agreement.

56. A perusal of the plaint demonstrates that the Plaintiffs have asserted
rights in the Suit Property on the basis of a family arrangement, the
documents executed pursuant thereto, and the conduct of the parties. The

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 38 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
plaint discloses a complete bundle of facts constituting a cause of action.
Whether the Plaintiffs ultimately succeed in establishing such rights is a
matter to be determined upon trial.

57. It is also pertinent to note that Defendant No. 1 does not dispute the
execution of the documents relied upon by the Plaintiffs and has admitted
his signatures thereon. Once the execution of the documents is admitted, the
questions as to their nature, effect, admissibility, and the rights flowing
therefrom become matters requiring adjudication on evidence. Such issues
cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Order VII Rule 11
CPC.

58. Whether the documents in question themselves create rights in
immovable property requiring compulsory registration, or merely record a
pre-existing family arrangement, is a mixed question of fact and law which
cannot be decided without examining the documents in their entirety and the
surrounding circumstances.

59. Equally untenable is the contention that the Suit is liable to be rejected
for want of a prayer seeking declaration of title. The Plaintiffs have asserted
an existing right in the Suit Property and have sought reliefs founded
thereon. Whether the Plaintiffs possess a better title than Defendant No. 1
and whether a declaration was necessary in the facts of the case are matters
which can only be decided after the parties have led evidence. At this stage,
it cannot be held that the plaint is barred by law or that it fails to disclose a
cause of action.

60. The objections raised by Defendant No. 1 essentially require this
Court to determine the validity, admissibility, legal effect and evidentiary
value of the documents relied upon by the Plaintiffs. Such an exercise falls

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 39 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52
squarely within the domain of trial and lies beyond the limited scope of an
enquiry under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

61. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the plaint
discloses a cause of action and that no ground for rejection of the plaint
under Order VII Rule 11(a) or Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is made out.

62. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application filed by Defendant
No. 1 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is dismissed.

63. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined solely to
the adjudication of the present application and shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the disputes between the parties.
CS(OS) 583/2019 & I.A. 11150/2020 , I.A. 4809/2021 , I.A. 11450/2021,
I.A. 14309/2021, I.A. 14381/2021 , I.A. 14382/2021 , I.A. 3204/2022 , I.A.
5374/2022 , I.A. 5378/2022 , I.A. 6672/2023 , I.A. 19622/2023

CS(OS) 39/2022 & I.A. 1317/2022, I.A. 8437/2022 , I.A. 8453/2022 , I.A.
10545/2022 , I.A. 13478/2022 , I.A. 13537/2022

List on 08.09.2026.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JULY 01, 2026
hsk/mt

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 583/2019 etc. Page 40 of 40
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:06.07.2026
18:01:52

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Shri Gurbir Singh Alag & Anr vs Shri Robinder Singh Alag & Anr on 1 July, 2026

Delhi High Court