Court passed decree assuming the existence of Will and proceeding to interpret the clauses in Will without recording the proof of same and passing judgment on admission was erroneous

Citation 

AIR 2023 SUPREME COURT 5579

2024 SAR (Civil) 126

2023 SAR Online (SC) 1176

2023 INSC 897

SUPREME COURT

(From: 2023 (1) ADR 94)

ANIRUDDHA BOSE , J. and S. V. N. BHATTI , J.

Civil Appeal No. 5355 of 2023 (@ S.L.P.(C) No. 6793 of 2023), D/- 10 - 10 - 2023

Vikrant Kapila and Anr. v. Pankaja Panda and Ors.

(A)Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O.12 R.6, O.15 R.1, O.15 R.2, O.8 R.5 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.17, S.58, S.68 - Judgment on admission - Admission in pleadings - Meaning and duty of Court

stated. Admission in pleadings are averments made by a party in the pleading i.e. plaint, written statement, etc. in a pending proceedings of admitting the factual matrix presented by the other side. To constitute a valid admission in pleadings, the said admission should be unequivocal, unconditional,

and unambiguous, and the admission must be made with an intention to be bound by it. Admission must be valid without being proved by adducing evidence and enabling the opposite party to succeed without trial. A court, while pronouncing a judgment on admission, keeps in its perspective the requirements in O. 8 R. 5, O. 12 R. 6, O. 15 Rr. 1, 2 of CPC read with Ss. 17, 58 and 68 of the

Evidence Act. The logic behind such jurisprudential examination of an admission is that a judgment

pronounced on admission, not only denies the right of trial on an issue but denies the remedy of appeal. Hence, discretion has to be exercised judiciously and objectively while making a judgment on admission in a pleading.  (Paras 22.3 , 22.4) 

(B)Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O.12 R.6, O.15 R.1, O.15 R.2, O.8 R.5 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.17, S.68, S.58 - Judgment on admission - Validity - Plaintiffs and co-defendants had claimed the partition of suit property as co-sharers through intestate succession - Whereas, defendants pleaded for testamentary succession based on the Will executed by original owner of suit property - Will was neither brought on record nor proved - Plaintiffs and co-defendants had

denied the existence and execution of Will - Pronouncing a view on the operating clauses of document yet to satisfy the requirements of S. 63 of Succession Act read with Ss. 58 and 68 of Evidence Act was an illegal exercise of discretion - Findings of High Court in straightaway

assuming the existence of Will and proceeding to interpret the clauses in Will without recording the proof of same and passing judgment on admission was erroneous - Matter remitted.

Succession Act (39 of 1925), S.63(c) -

2023 (1) ADR 94, Reversed.

AIROnline 2011 SC 385, AIR 2000 SC 2740, Followed.  (Paras 27 , 27.1 , 27.2 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 41) 

Cases Referred Chronological Paras

2023 (1) ADR 94 : AIROnline 2022 Del 210 (Reversed) 1

AIR 2017 SC 494 26.1

AIROnline 2011 SC 385 (Foll.) 25

AIR 2011 SC (Civ) 76 26