2015 (2) TMI 1386 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit for recovery of possession and damages with respect to a portion of the property being in unauthorized occupation of the Appellant/Defendant - Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure - High Court exceeded its jurisdiction Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not - HELD THAT - The bare perusal of the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that it confers wide discretion on the court to pass a judgment at any stage of the suit on the basis of admission of facts made in the pleading or otherwise without waiting for the determination of any other question arose between the parties. Since the Rule permits the passing of judgment at any stage without waiting for determination of other question it follows that there can be more than one decree that may be passed at different stages of the same suit. The principle behind Order XII Rule 6 is to give the Plaintiff a right to speedy judgment so that either party may get rid of the rival claims which are not in controversy. On an application filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent Under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure seeking a judgment in the suit the trial court dismissed the application stating that there is no unequivocal admission for passing a judgment in the suit. The High Court however reversed the order passed by the trial court and held that considering the earlier judgment deciding the ownership of the suit property in favour of the Appellant the suit for possession ought to have been decreed by the trial court. Consequently the High Court decreed the suit - it reveals that the High Court not only decreed the suit for possession but also directed the Plaintiff/Respondent to file an affidavit giving details of the cost of litigation since the appeal was allowed with cost. There is no dispute with regard to the law settled by this Court that Order XII Rule 6 confers wide discretion on the Court to pass judgment either at the stage of the suit on the basis of admission of the facts made in the pleadings or otherwise but the Court shall later on decide the other questions which arise for consideration in the Suit - It is equally well settled that the provision of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code is not a mandatory provision rather discretionary. While exercising power of passing judgment on admission made in the pleading or otherwise the Court must keep the matter pending for adjudication so far as other issues are concerned. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the suit property.
2. Unauthorized occupation and recovery of possession.
3. Claim for damages and future damages.
4. Application of res judicata.
5. Application of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Detailed Analysis:

Ownership of the Suit Property:
The Plaintiff-Respondent claimed ownership of the suit property, asserting it was purchased out of her own funds, making her the absolute owner. The Appellant-Defendant, her son, contested this by alleging that the property was a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property, acquired using funds from his grandfather, father, and himself. The trial court and High Court had previously ruled against the Appellant's claim of the property being a HUF property, affirming the Plaintiff's ownership.

Unauthorized Occupation and Recovery of Possession:
The Plaintiff sought recovery of possession, alleging that the Appellant was in unauthorized occupation of the property. The trial court dismissed the Plaintiff's application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, stating there was no unequivocal admission by the Appellant regarding unauthorized occupation. However, the High Court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit for possession, noting the earlier judgments had already settled the ownership issue in favor of the Plaintiff, and thus the principle of res judicata applied.

Claim for Damages and Future Damages:
The Plaintiff also sought recovery of Rs. 5,55,000/- and future damages at Rs. 15,000/- per month. The trial court did not pass a decree for damages due to the lack of unequivocal admission by the Appellant. The High Court, however, decreed the entire suit, including damages, which was later contested by the Appellant. The Supreme Court held that while the decree for possession was justified, the decree for damages was not, as this issue had not been decided in the earlier suit or the current one.

Application of Res Judicata:
The High Court applied the principle of res judicata, stating that the Appellant's claims about the property being a HUF property and his ownership rights were already settled in previous judgments. The Appellant's new plea of co-ownership based on a compromise deed was barred by constructive res judicata, as it was not raised in the earlier partition suit.

Application of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
Order XII Rule 6 CPC allows for a judgment based on admissions made in pleadings or otherwise. The High Court exercised this provision, noting that the ownership issue was already settled, and thus the suit for possession could be decreed. The Supreme Court acknowledged the wide discretion conferred by Order XII Rule 6 but emphasized that it is discretionary and not mandatory. The Court must later decide on other issues, such as the quantum of damages.

Final Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decree for possession based on the settled ownership issue but modified the decree regarding damages. Considering the relationship between the parties, the Court deemed Rs. 5,00,000/- as just and proper for damages. The Appellant was allowed to remain in possession until 31.12.2015, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month as damages. Failure to comply would entitle the Respondent to execute the decree for possession and damages. The appeal was dismissed with these modifications.