MOHD. RAZA & ANR. versus GEETA @ GEETA DEVI

MOHD. RAZA & ANR. versus GEETA @ GEETA DEVI

The defendants' written statement, which claimed they were not 'now' tenants but that defendant No.2 was the owner by virtue of an agreement to sell and a pending specific performance suit, nonetheless amounted to an admission that until the specific performance suit is decided in favor of defendant No.2 the plaintiff remains the owner and defendant No.1 the tenant; therefore a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was rightly passed by the High Court, subject to the outcome of the pending suit for specific performance.

Parties
Appellants: Mohd. Raza & Anr.; Respondent: Geeta @ Geeta Devi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment and Order Dated 14.11.2019
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Order XII Rule 6 CPC, Decree on Admission, Specific Performance, Tenancy, Eviction
Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Order XII Rule 6 CPC Decree on Admission Specific Performance Tenancy Eviction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd. Raza & Anr.

Appellants

Geeta @ Geeta Devi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment and Order Dated 14.11.2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC could be passed where defendants claimed ownership by an agreement to sell and had a pending suit for specific performance
  2. 2 Whether an agreement to sell confers ownership before a decree for specific performance or execution of a sale deed
  3. 3 Whether averments in the written statement amounted to an admission that the plaintiff was the owner and defendant No.1 a tenant

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' written statement, which claimed they were not 'now' tenants but that defendant No.2 was the owner by virtue of an agreement to sell and a pending specific performance suit, nonetheless amounted to an admission that until the specific performance suit is decided in favor of defendant No.2 the plaintiff remains the owner and defendant No.1 the tenant; therefore a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was rightly passed by the High Court, subject to the outcome of the pending suit for specific performance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 14.11.2019 of the High Court confirmed
  • Decree for eviction on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC passed by the High Court is upheld