Supreme Court Sets Aside Judgment on Admission in Property Partition Suit: Vikrant Kapila vs. Pankaja Panda (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10 October 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 897

Judges: Aniruddha Bose, J., S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

Can a court issue a judgment based on admissions when a crucial document, like a will, is disputed in a property partition suit? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question, focusing on the validity of a judgment on admissions when the very basis of the claim—a will—is contested by some parties. This case highlights the importance of clear and unequivocal admissions in legal proceedings, particularly in property disputes involving wills and inheritance.

The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed a dispute over the partition of a property where some parties claimed intestate succession (inheritance without a will), while others claimed testamentary succession (inheritance through a will). The court had to determine whether the lower courts were correct in issuing a judgment based on admissions, even when the existence and validity of the will were in question. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, with Justice S.V.N. Bhatti authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property located in New Delhi, which originally belonged to Sheila Kapila. Sheila Kapila passed away on April 8, 2003, and her husband had died before her on February 15, 1994. The plaintiffs in the suit are the grandchildren of Sheila Kapila through her daughter, Mrs. Sudha Panda. They filed a suit seeking partition, separate possession, and a permanent injunction related to the property. The defendants include Sheila Kapila’s other children and grandchildren.

The plaintiffs claimed that Sheila Kapila died intestate (without a will), and therefore, the property should be divided among her four children. They sought a one-fourth share in the property. However, some of the defendants, specifically Defendant Nos. 4 and 5, claimed that Sheila Kapila had left a will dated November 18, 1999, which dictated how the property should be divided. This will, according to them, granted a life interest to Sheila Kapila’s children, with the absolute right of ownership going to her grandchildren.

The plaintiffs and other defendants (Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3) disputed the existence and validity of the will, arguing that Sheila Kapila died intestate. They also contended that even if the will were valid, it granted absolute ownership to her four children, not her grandchildren. The plaintiffs requested that the property be sold, and the proceeds be divided among the four children, with the share of one of the children, Dr. Rajendra Kapila, to be held in court pending a dispute between his second wife (Defendant No. 3) and his daughters from his first marriage (Defendant Nos. 4 and 5).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi initially passed a preliminary decree on May 10, 2022, declaring that the plaintiffs, along with Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and the legal heirs of the late Dr. Rajendra Kapila, were each entitled to a 25% undivided share in the property. The Single Judge also ordered the sale of the property, stating that it could not be divided by metes and bounds. The share of Dr. Rajendra Kapila was to be deposited in the court pending a resolution of the dispute between Defendant No. 3 and Defendant Nos. 4 and 5.

The Single Judge based the judgment on the premise that there was an admission by Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 regarding the existence of the will, and that the dispute was only about the interpretation of the will’s clauses. The Single Judge interpreted the will to mean that the children of Sheila Kapila had absolute rights over the property, and not just a life interest. This interpretation was made despite the fact that the original will was not produced before the court, and its existence was denied by the plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi upheld the Single Judge’s decision on October 11, 2022, stating that the will was not under challenge and that the only issue was its interpretation. The Division Bench also proceeded on the assumption that the will was admitted by all parties. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court by Defendant Nos. 4 and 5.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several key legal provisions in its judgment:

• Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Defines an “admission” as a statement that suggests an inference about a fact in issue or a relevant fact.
• Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: States that facts admitted need not be proved.
• Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Stipulates the requirements for proving the execution of a will.
• Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: Specifies the requirements for a valid will, including the testator’s signature and attestation by witnesses.
• Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Deals with specific denial of facts in pleadings.
• Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC: Allows the court to pronounce judgment on admissions made in pleadings or otherwise.
• Order XV Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC: Empowers the court to pronounce judgment if the parties are not at issue on any question of law or fact.
• Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893: Deals with the power of the court to order a sale of property in partition suits.

The Court emphasized that for an admission to be valid, it must be clear, unequivocal, and unconditional. It also highlighted that a will must be proved in accordance with the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act before it can be considered a valid document. The court also noted that a judgment on admission should not be passed if it denies a party the right to a fair trial.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Defendant Nos. 4 and 5):

• The appellants contended that the lower courts erred in passing a judgment on admission because there was no clear admission regarding the existence and validity of the will.
• They argued that the plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3 had consistently denied the existence of the will, and therefore, a judgment based on an admission was impermissible.
• The appellants emphasized that they were the propounders of the will, and the burden was on them to prove its validity, which required a trial.
• They submitted that the lower courts had wrongly assumed the existence of the will and proceeded to interpret its clauses, which was an error.
• They argued that the admission through e-mail by them is not an unequivocal admission because the existence of the Will is seriously contested by the Plaintiffs, Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
• They further argued on the interpretation of the Will under Section 83, Indian Succession Act, 1925 and relied on precedents touching upon the construction of a Will under Sections 87 and 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Arguments by the Respondents (Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3):

• The respondents argued that the judgment on admission was valid because Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 had admitted the existence of the will in their written statement and in their response to the admission/denial of documents.
• They submitted that the lower courts had correctly interpreted the will to mean that the children of Sheila Kapila had an absolute right over the property.
• They contended that there was no dispute regarding the entitlement of the plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to a 25% share each in the property.
• They argued that the dispute regarding the share of Dr. Rajendra Kapila was a separate issue that could be decided in a separate proceeding.
• They argued that the differentiation between the admitted case and the disputed case comes within the scope of Order XV, Rule 2 of the CPC, and a decree to the extent where it is governed by admission has been made and the dispute is relegated to independent proceedings.

The innovativeness of the argument by the Appellants lies in their challenge to the very basis of the judgment on admission, highlighting that the lower courts had assumed the existence of the will without proper proof and in the face of explicit denial by the other parties.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the suit property is divided among the parties on testamentary succession or intestate succession?
2. Whether the Will propounded by Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 is valid, legal and binding on the parties?
3. Whether Defendant No. 3 is entitled to succeed to Dr. Rajendra Kapila’s share to the exclusion of Defendant Nos. 4 and 5?
4. Whether Dr. Rajendra Kapila could bequeath the share in the suit property in favour of Defendant No. 3 or not?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Uttam Singh Dugal v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120*: The Court acknowledged the principle that a judgment can be passed on admitted claims but emphasized that the admission must be clear and unequivocal.
• Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd., (2011) 15 SCC 273*: The Court reiterated that admissions should be categorical and intentional, and that the discretion to pass a judgment on admission should be exercised judiciously.
• Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal and others, (2010) 14 SCC 266*: The Court used this case to highlight the legal requirements for the due execution of a will, which were not met in this case.
• Ramesh Verma (D) Through Lrs. v. Lajesh Saxena (D) By Lrs. and another, (2017) 1 SCC 257*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the execution of a will must be proved as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Savithri and others v. Karthyayani Amma and other, (2007) 11 SCC 621*: The Court cited this case to reiterate that the burden of proving a will lies on the propounder.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that a fair trial was conducted and that no party was denied the right to present their case. The Court emphasized that the lower courts had erred in assuming the existence of the will and in passing a judgment on admission when the very basis of the claim was disputed. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to uphold the principles of natural justice and to ensure that all parties had an opportunity to be heard.

Fact:Law Ratio: The court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%). The legal aspects included the requirements for a valid admission, the procedure for proving a will, and the principles of natural justice. The factual aspects included the conflicting claims of the parties and the specific circumstances of the case.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because they were based on an assumption that the will was admitted by all parties. The Court emphasized that a judgment on admission should not be passed if it denies a party the right to a fair trial.

The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had erred in passing a judgment on admission because there was no clear and unequivocal admission of the will. The Court emphasized that the existence and validity of the will were disputed and needed to be proved through a trial. The Court also noted that the lower courts had failed to follow the correct procedure for proving a will.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing that the lower courts had erred in their judgment. The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing legal framework for passing judgments on admission and proving the validity of a will.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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.”
• “Admissions’ should be categorical and intentional, as Order XII, Rule 6 , CPC allows discretion rather than obligation . Admissions result in judgments without trial which permanently deny any remedy to the defendant, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore, unless the admission is clear, unambiguous, and unconditional, the discretion of the Court is not exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest the claim.”
• “A will by the execution is an instrument and becomes an enforceable legal document by proof in accordance with law. A court treats a Will as a legally enforceable document only upon proof in accordance with law.”

Key Takeaways

• A judgment on admission cannot be passed if the admission is not clear, unequivocal, and unconditional.
• The existence and validity of a will must be proved through a trial, and the court cannot assume its existence based on an alleged admission.
• Courts must exercise judicial discretion judiciously when deciding whether to pass a judgment on admission, ensuring that no party is denied the right to a fair trial.
• In property partition suits, courts must endeavor to comprehensively adjudicate and decide the right, entitlement, and share of the parties in the same proceeding to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

This judgment clarifies the requirements for a valid admission in pleadings and emphasizes the importance of a fair trial, particularly in cases involving wills and inheritance. It sets a precedent that lower courts must follow when dealing with similar cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court upheld the direction for the sale of the property, but also gave the following additional directions:

1. The Local Commissioner shall take steps to get the property converted from leasehold to freehold.
2. The statutory fees/charges for conversion of the suit property from leasehold to freehold shall be borne by the plaintiffs and the defendants no.1 and 2 in proportion to their share in the suit property.
3. Defendants no.1, 2 and 3 will execute a power of attorney in favor of plaintiff no.1 to sign all the requisite documents for the conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold.
4. The Local Commissioner shall be authorized to sign all the requisite documents on behalf of the defendants no.4 and 5 for the conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold.
5. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) shall accept all the documents executed by the Local Commissioner on behalf of the parties for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold.
6. After conversion of the property, the Local Commissioner will conduct a private sale of the property.
7. The Local Commissioner will complete the sale within three months.
8. The Local Commissioner is directed to initiate, conduct and complete the sale of the suit property by exploring all IT-enabled solutions.
9. The Local Commissioner will complete the process of creating a WhatsApp Group and e-mail ID within one week.
10. The Local Commissioner and the parties will explore the feasibility of hiring e-platforms that provide services for e-auction.
11. The Local Commissioner is directed to go by the consensus in suggestions arrived at between the parties.
12. In the event of disagreement, the Local Commissioner is given liberty to move and proceed as directed by the Court.
13. The sale proceeds are deposited to the credit of CS (OS) No. 701/2021.
14. In the event that the private sale is not successful, the Local Commissioner will take steps to auction the property.
15. The fees of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 5,00,000/- plus out of pocket expenses.
16. The fees paid to the Local Commissioner and other statutory fees shall be recovered by the plaintiffs and the defendants no.1 and 2 from the sale proceeds of the suit property as a first charge.
17. The parties to the suit shall render all assistance to the Local Commissioner

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by the Single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. The Court remanded the case back to the High Court for a trial on the issues framed. The Court also directed the lower court to expedite the trial and decide the case on its merits.