2001 (8) TMI 1434 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to the estate of Late Subhash Chand.
2. Entitlement to the estate of Late Smt. Parkash.
3. Validity and revocation of the will of Late Subhash Chand.
4. Application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for judgment on admission.
5. Appointment of a Receiver for the suit property.
6. Stage at which Order 12 Rule 6 can be invoked.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to the estate of Late Subhash Chand:
The appellant, as the second wife of Late Subhash Chand, claimed a 50% share in his estate. Respondent No. 3, the adopted daughter, also claimed a 50% share. The court noted that if the will of Late Subhash Chand, which was allegedly revoked, is considered legally revoked, both the appellant and respondent No. 3 would have equal shares in the estate.

2. Entitlement to the estate of Late Smt. Parkash:
The appellant claimed that the estate of Late Smt. Parkash, the first wife of Late Subhash Chand, should be treated as part of his estate since she had no independent source of income. Respondent No. 3 contended that the estate of Smt. Parkash should devolve equally between Late Subhash Chand and herself. The court treated the estate of Smt. Parkash as her own, entitling respondent No. 3 to 3/4th of the estate (1/2 as her own and 1/4 as a legal heir of Late Subhash Chand).

3. Validity and revocation of the will of Late Subhash Chand:
Respondent No. 3 claimed rights to the entire estate based on a will executed by Late Subhash Chand on 16.9.1988. The appellant argued that this will was revoked by a deed dated 5.3.1991. The court noted that if the will was legally revoked, respondent No. 3 would still be entitled to a 50% share in the estate of Late Subhash Chand.

4. Application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for judgment on admission:
The court examined whether the admissions made by the appellant were un-conditional, unequivocal, and unambiguous. The appellant admitted that respondent No. 3 would be entitled to a 50% share in the estate of Late Subhash Chand if the estate of Smt. Parkash was also considered part of his estate. The court held that the admissions were clear to the extent that respondent No. 3 was entitled to a 50% share in both estates.

5. Appointment of a Receiver for the suit property:
The application for the appointment of a Receiver was part of the relief sought by respondent No. 3. The court did not specifically address this issue in detail within the judgment, focusing more on the entitlement and partition of the estate.

6. Stage at which Order 12 Rule 6 can be invoked:
The court clarified that the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 could be invoked "at any stage of the suit," rejecting the appellant's argument that it could not be applied after issues had been framed. The court emphasized that the timing of the application did not preclude its consideration, as the application was filed soon after the written statement in 1991.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that respondent No. 3 was entitled to judgment on admission and a preliminary decree for partition was passed. The court modified the judgment to hold that respondent No. 3 is entitled to a 1/2 share in both the properties described in Annexures 'A' and 'B'. The appeal was partly allowed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.