Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Civil Revision in Family Property Dispute: "Admissions Must Be Evident from the Plaint"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore Bench, presided over by Justice Subodh Abhyankar, dismissed a civil revision petition in a complex family property dispute. The case, titled Vinay vs. Harshvardhan and Others, involved a partition suit of ancestral properties and a contested will.

The petitioner, Vinay, had approached the High Court challenging the decision of the XIXth District Judge, Indore, who rejected an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application contended that the plaintiff had made admissions in the plaint that could resolve the suit without a full trial.

Justice Subodh Abhyankar, in his observation, stated, "Admissions must be able to be discerned by mere perusal of the plaint, otherwise, its evidentiary value can only be ascertained during the trial." This remark forms the crux of the decision, emphasizing the need for clear, categorical admissions in a plaint for early dismissal of a suit under Order 12 Rule 6.

The dispute revolves around properties inherited from the late Shri Manohar Khandekar, with the central contention involving a house at 18/2 Marai Mohalla, Indore, and another at 12/1, Old Palasia, Indore. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 claimed that the properties, including the one acquired through the sale proceeds of ancestral property, were left to him as per his father's will.

The High Court, in its judgment, also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Karan vs. Madhuri, highlighting the discretionary nature of Order 12 Rule 6 and the necessity for specific, clear, and categorical admissions for a judgment on admissions.

In dismissing the revision, the Court concluded that the grounds raised by the petitioner required evidence and could not be adjudicated merely on the basis of the plaint. The High Court’s decision reaffirms the principle that mere references or indirect statements in a plaint do not constitute admissions strong enough to bypass a full trial.

This ruling sets a significant precedent in cases involving family property disputes, especially where the interpretation of wills and ancestral property claims are concerned. It underscores the importance of thorough judicial examination and trial procedures in resolving complex family disputes.

The detailed implications of this judgment are yet to be seen, but it certainly adds a new dimension to the legal understanding of admissions in civil suits.

Decided on: 14-12-2023

VINAY Vs. HARSHVARDHAN AND OTHERS

 

Latest Legal News