The Supreme Court has held that a court cannot grant a decree merely on the basis of an alleged admission unless such admission is clear, categorical, unconditional, and unequivocal. The Court emphasized that where substantial disputed questions of fact exist, parties must be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence and the matter must proceed to trial. 

The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed the appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment which had decreed a money recovery claim solely on the basis of statements made in a written statement. 

Background of the Dispute

The dispute arose within a Hindu family following the sale of agricultural land measuring approximately 31 bighas and 9 biswas in August 2007 for a consideration exceeding ₹15 crore. According to the pleadings, the sale proceeds were received by the father of the family in his personal account. Subsequently, one of the family members instituted a civil suit seeking recovery of ₹45 lakh along with partition of family properties and other consequential reliefs. 

During the proceedings, one of the defendants stated in his written statement that pursuant to a family settlement, he had received ₹3 crore from the sale proceeds along with certain immovable properties. Relying upon this statement and a later partition decree determining the shares of family members, the plaintiff sought a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, contending that the defendant had received an amount exceeding his lawful share and was therefore liable to refund approximately ₹44.79 lakh. 

Trial Court Refused Decree on Admission

The Additional District Judge rejected the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that the dispute involved triable issues requiring appreciation of evidence. The Trial Court observed that the issues framed in the suit, including entitlement to recovery and interest, could only be determined after a full-fledged trial. 

However, the Delhi High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, reversed the Trial Court’s order and decreed recovery of ₹44.79 lakh along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit. 

Supreme Court Examines Scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC

The Supreme Court examined the legal principles governing judgments on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Court reiterated that although the provision enables courts to pronounce judgment on admissions, such power is discretionary and can be exercised only when the admission leaves no room for controversy. 

Referring to settled jurisprudence, the Court observed that a judgment on admission is an exception to the normal rule that civil disputes should be adjudicated after evidence is led. Since such a decree effectively denies a trial, courts must exercise the power cautiously and only in cases where admissions are absolutely clear and unconditional. 

Statement in Written Statement Not an Admission of Liability

The Supreme Court found that the statement relied upon by the plaintiff merely indicated that the defendant had received certain money and properties under a family settlement. The statement did not contain any admission that the amount was received in excess of his entitlement or that he owed any sum to the plaintiff. 

The Court stressed that pleadings must be read as a whole and not in a piecemeal manner. It noted that the defendant had consistently disputed the plaintiff’s claim and maintained that the family settlement had already resolved the rights of the parties. Therefore, the statement relied upon could not be isolated and treated as a conclusive admission of liability. 

Several Factual Issues Required Trial

The Bench further observed that the entire sale consideration had admittedly been received by another family member, and the liability sought to be imposed on the defendant depended upon several disputed factual questions.

These included:

• Whether the sale proceeds were distributed unequally;
• Whether the amount received by the defendant represented money belonging to the plaintiff;
• Whether the defendant held any amount on behalf of the plaintiff;
• Whether the plaintiff had an enforceable claim against the defendant. 

The Court held that such questions could not be conclusively answered on the basis of pleadings alone and necessarily required evidence. 

Framing of Issues Itself Showed Existence of Triable Questions

An important factor weighed with the Supreme Court was that the High Court itself had earlier framed specific issues regarding entitlement to recovery and interest and had directed the parties to lead evidence. According to the Court, once a court has found the existence of disputed factual issues requiring trial, it would be inappropriate to subsequently bypass the trial and invoke Order XII Rule 6 CPC. 

The Bench observed that the very act of framing issues demonstrated that the controversy required adjudication through evidence and appreciation of facts. 

High Court Exceeded Revisional Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court also held that the Delhi High Court exceeded the limits of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The revisional court could not act as an appellate court by reassessing factual aspects and substituting its own interpretation of the pleadings merely because another view was possible. 

According to the Court, the Trial Court’s decision refusing a decree on admission was in consonance with settled legal principles and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference. 

Supreme Court’s Decision

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment and restored the order of the Additional District Judge rejecting the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. 

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the issue of judgment on admission and would not affect the merits of the pending civil proceedings, which are to be decided independently by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence. 

Case Details

Case Title: Pushpa & Ors. Versus Dayawati & Ors.

Citation: JURISHOUR-1488-SC-2026

Case No.: Diary No. 26304 of 2019

Date: 29/05/2026

Read More: Supreme Court Quashes Removal of Tirupati Mutt Mahant