CASE SYNOPSIS

In the Court of Learned Civil Judge – I, Senior Division – Cum – Sub Judge I,
AT – Munger

Title Suit No. 28 of 2021

Smt. INDU SINGH --------------------------------------------------------------- PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
1. UMA DEVI (Wife of Late Surendra Pratap Singh)
2. Binod Singh ( Mentally Unsound)
3. Binay Singh All sons of Late
4. Bijay Kumar Singh Surendra P. Singh
5. Bikash Singh Alias Dimple

6. Meena Devi (Wife of Late Rudra Narain Singh)

7. Piyush Kumar Singh
8. Banti Kumar All Sons of Late Rudra
9. Rakesh Kumar Narain Singh

------------------------- DEFENDANTS

FACTS OF THE CASE: -

1. Scheduled suit property belonged to the Rampadarnath Singh S/O Late Mahtab Singh
(Common ancestor of the defendants), After the death of Rampradanath Singh his Son
namely, Sakaldeo Singh, Bimal singh. Surendra Pratap singh and Rudradeo Narayan
singh jointly succeded the Sch. Suit Property. After the death of Second so Bimal
singh The Property is divided among left 3 sons.

Total Sch. Suit Property = 19.21 Decimals

1. Late Surendra Pratap Singh = 6.37 Decimal
2. Late Rudranarayan Singh = 6.29 Decimal
3. Late Sakaldeo Singh = 6.55 Decimal
1
 2. The urgent need of money, The defendants wanted to sell the Sch. Suit property And,
On the Date 26.04.18. Plaintiff approached defendants and negotiated with them to
purchase that property for the sum of total Rs. 20,50,000 /-
3. On the date of finalization of the deal the defendants requested to plaintiff to pay Rs.
10,00,000 out of entire consideration money Rs. 20,50,000.
Instant money = Rs. 10,00,000
Later On = Rs. 10,50,000
4. And on the very same date 26.04.18 the plaintiff paid the instant requested amount of
Rs. 10,00,000 via check no. 656919 & 656917 respectively. Both date the same date
abovementioned
5. Later on, the remained money was requested by the defendant to pe paid and plaintiff
agreed to pay further remained amount of Rs. 10,50,000 and got an agreement to sell
executed in her favor. (Through check no.221267 & 221269). Although, the standard
draft of agreement to sell was made on the Non judicial Stamp Paper.
6. The defendant was also requested plaintiff to pay the Additional sum of Rs. 30,000
for the aforesaid boundary wall of the Sch. Suit property and plaintiff paid that too.
7. On, 31.05.2018 the defendant delivered and conveyed the possession of the suit
property to the plaintiff in the presence of the witness, her husband Sri Narendra
kumar singh and residents of the village.
8. The Main Cause arises when, after the payment of entire consideration and delivery of
the possession of the suit property, The defendants on 25.12.20 attempted to disturb
the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
And, again on 31.12.20 defendants tried to attempt to disturb the peaceful possession of
the plaintiff’s property.

ISSUE OF THE CASE: -

1. For the Title and possession of the Schedule suit property.

2
PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT: -

Even after the payment of total consideration money in accordance of the Agreement to sell,
The defendants try to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the Sch Suit
property
Now, there is no part of the consideration left to be paid to the defendants, Hence the Plaintiff
should get the full Entitlement and possession of the Sch. Suit property And prays for on the
basis of facts and circumstances of the instant suit the titlement of the sch. Suit property in
the favour of plaintiff.

DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT: -

The Defendants argued on the point that all the given statements, Averments and assertion
were made by the plaintiff is all True and correct and not denied by the defendants.
Defendants also argues on the point that there arose some confusion and ambiguity by and
between the defendants No. 3 Binay Kumar Singh and the plaintiff which resulted in ugly
situation and aforesaid all the confusion and ambiguity is now been resolved between the
parties.
And also accepts that from the date 31.05.18 (Date of delivery of the possession of the Sch.
Suit property) by the defendant to the plaintiff to till date and coming on in continuous will
be have uninterrupted possession and entitlement of the property And prays to the court to
accept the this statement and further issue decree on the facts and circumstances.

3
MY FINDINGS: -

In the given facts and arguments of the parties, As the defendants have accepted all the facts
provided by the plaintiff in regarding to the instant suit.
The Instant suit which is Declaratory simpliciter ( When a plaintiff is in lawful and peaceful
possession of a property and such possession is disturbed or threatned by the defendant)
The aforesaid mentioned suit comes under the purview of Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil
Procedural code,1908 which states “JUDGEMENT ON ADMISSION” which says that,
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.

The purpose of Order XII rule 6 Civil Procedure Code is to avoid waiting by the plaintiff
for part of the decree when there is a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional
admission of the defendant in respect of the claim of the defendant.

In the case of Raj Kumar Chawla v. Lucas Indian Services, it was said that the Court
essentially should look into the fact that all essential ingredients of an admission are satisfied
before such a decree is passed in favor of any of the parties to the suit.
Admission has to be unambiguous, clear and unconditional and the law would not permit
admission by inference as it is a matter of fact. Admission of a fact has to be clear from the
record itself and cannot be left to the interpretative determination by the Court, unless there
was a complete trial and such finding could be on the basis of cogent and appropriate
evidence on record.

In case of IPRS v. Puneet Goenka it was held that agreements amount to an unequivocal
admission of liability provided they are not in contravention of law.