TANI SANDHU BHARGAVA vs SHUMITA DIDI SANDHU

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on:15.07.2024
Pronounced on:01.08.2024

+ CS(OS) 452/2019
TANI SANDHU BHARGAVA …..Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. and Mr.Y.P. Narula, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Laksh Khanna, Ms.Smriti Maheshwari, Ms.Ayushi Kumar and Ms.Diksha Suri, Advs.

versus

SHUMITA DIDI SANDHU …..Defendant
Through: Mr.Akshay Makhija, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Hukam Chand Sukhija, Ms.Anurag Vashishtt, Mr.Vishal Kumar, Mr.Shyam Kumar, Mr.Aniket Bose, Mr.Anmol Mishra, Ms.Mansi Purohit and Ms.Iqra Khan, Advs.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
I.A. 11742/2020
1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’), praying for a decree of possession of the Ground Floor of Block No. 172, Plot No. 202, Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 110003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Suit Property’) against the defendant.
Case of the plaintiff
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Suit Property was purchased by her mother- Mrs.Sheila Sandhu, vide the registered Sale Deed dated 06.05.2005. Subsequently, Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu gifted the said property by way of a Registered Gift Deed dated 29.01.2008 to the plaintiff, giving her the absolute right of ownership of the Suit Property.
3. The plaintiff further claims that on 19.08.2018, the defendant, who is the wife of the deceased brother of the plaintiff, without taking prior permission from the plaintiff, moved into the Suit Property and since then residing there.
4. The plaintiff claims that as her brother Late Sh.Sanjay Singh Sandhu was unwell and the defendant was taking care of him during this period, the plaintiff out of kindness allowed the defendant to reside into the Suit Property. Late Sh.Sanjay Singh Sandhu passed away on 03.07.2019, thereafter, the defendant refused to vacate the Suit Property when requested by the plaintiff and instead was hostile towards the plaintiff and her family when they came to visit Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu, the mother of the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff further pleads that, earlier also, the defendant had occupied another property belonging to Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu, that is, property bearing no. 18A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar. She also filed a Suit, being CS(OS) 41/2005 titled Shumita Didi Sandhu v. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors., praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu from evicting her from the said property. The said Suit was filed on the basis that the said property belongs exclusively to Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu. Later, the defendant tried to plead, by way of an amendment application, that the said property belongs to a Hindu Undivided Family (‘HUF’) of Late Sh.Jhanda Singh (great grandfather of Late Sh.Sanjay Singh Sandhu). This Court, however, dismissed the said application vide its Judgment dated 03.09.2012 reported as (2012) SCC OnLine Del 4600, holding that this was a new case being set out by the defendant.
6. The plaintiff pleads that Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu on selling the property at Lajpat Nagar, purchased the Suit Property in her own name and, therefore, was fully competent to gift the same to the plaintiff.
7. The plaintiff claims that as the defendant is a mere licensee, she is liable to be evicted from the Suit Premises on the termination of the license.
Case of the defendant:
8. On the other hand, the defendant in the written statement, has pleaded that the Suit Property is a HUF property and was purchased from the HUF funds in form of Rs. 1 lakh that was received against the ancestral property left behind by the family in Pakistan under the Order dated 17.01.1952 passed by the Claims Commissioner. The defendant pleads that the amount of compensation so received constituted the corpus of the HUF though it was received in the name of Smt.Harnam Kaur, the grandmother of the late husband of the defendant. The defendant further pleads that after ‘juggling names’ to their convenience through some manipulation and exchange deeds, the family acquired property at C-109, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi, though in the name of Mrs.Sheila Sandhu, the mother of the plaintiff and the mother-in-law of the defendant. The defendant further pleads that as the Karta of the HUF, Late Mr.Hardev Singh Sandhu (father-in-law of the defendant) held the General Power of Attorneys from his mother and his wife, and managed the said HUF properties by himself or in their names. The defendant pleads that the properties were purchased in the name of Late Mr.Hardev Singh Sandhu’s wife, that is Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu, after separating the interest of Mr.Jagdev Singh Sandhu and Sh.Randev Singh Sandhu from the joint family properties of the HUF. The defendant pleads that in similar modus, property at Faridabad and, thereafter, property at Lajpat Nagar, that is, property no.18A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, were purchased by Late Mr.Hardev Singh Sandhu as the Karta of the family, though in the name of Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu.
9. The defendant states that it is from the corpus of the HUF properties that the property at Lajpat Nagar was constructed. It was later sold, and the Suit Property was purchased though again in the name of Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu. The defendant pleads that, therefore, as the Suit Property is an HUF property, Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu did not have a right to gift the same to the plaintiff, and being a coparcener, the husband of the defendant had a right in the same, and on his demise, the defendant has acquired the said right.
10. The defendant states that, therefore, she is in possession of the Suit Property as a co-owner thereof, and she cannot be evicted therefrom.

Submissions by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff
11. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Bhagwat Sharan (Dead through Legal Representatives) v. Purushottam & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine 387; and of this Court in Sunny (Minor) & Anr. v. Sh. Raj Singh & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13446 and in Sh Rajeev Tandon & Anr. v. Smt Rashmi Tandon, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7336, submits that the plea of the defendant that the Suit Property is an HUF property, being unsupported by any document, is merely a moon-shine defence taken by the defendant to somehow hold on to the possession of the Suit Property. He submits that, in fact, the documents filed by the defendant along with her written statement would show that there was no HUF in existence; the properties including the Suit Property were purchased in the individual name of Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu and, therefore, cannot be treated as an HUF property.
12. He further submits that the earlier attempt of the defendant to plead an HUF status for the Lajpat Nagar property was also not accepted by this Court as the defendant was denied permission to amend her earlier suit. He submits that, therefore, the Suit Property belonged exclusively to the plaintiff’s mother, and she was entitled to gift the same by way of a registered gift deed to the plaintiff herein.
13. He further submits that, in the written statement, there is no challenge to the Gift Deed apart from saying that Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu was 95 years old and suffering from Alzheimer. He submits that what is relevant is that the said written statement was filed in the year 2019 while the gift deed in question had been executed in the year 2008. There is no plea in the written statement that Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu was suffering from Alzheimer even in the year 2008 leave alone any document being filed in support of such a plea.
14. He submits that, in the present suit, there is no counter claim filed by the defendant in form of either seeking a right in the Suit Property or challenging the Gift Deed. He submits that the defendant, therefore, cannot be allowed to plead or raise a claim/defence on the same in view of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
15. He further submits that even otherwise, the property having been purchased in the name of Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu, in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short, ‘Hindu Succession Act’), the same would belong exclusively in her name and a plea of an HUF cannot be accepted.
16. He submits that the present suit is based on the title, and the defendant not having proved any legal entitlement to the possession of the Suit Property, is liable to be evicted.
17. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that though there is no denial on part of the defendant in her written statement that the Gift Deed bears the signatures of Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu, the defendant is now seeking to even challenge the same. He submits that this itself shows the desperation of the defendant.

Submissions by the learned senior counsel for the defendant
18. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the defendant submits that for passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the admission, if any, made by the defendant must be unequivocal, unambiguous and clear. He submits that, in the present case, the defendant has not admitted to any plea of the plaintiff, instead has pleaded that the Suit Property belongs to the HUF and her husband had a share in the same being the co-parcener therein. He submits that in support of her plea, the defendant has also filed a chain of documents which would show how the properties were purchased from the corpus of the HUF, though in the name of the grandmother of the husband of the plaintiff and then the mother of the plaintiff. He submits that these are matters of trial and cannot be short-circuited by invoking provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
19. He submits that, in the present case, the defendant has pleaded existence of an HUF prior to 1956 and, therefore, the existence of an HUF would have to be dealt and considered in that light. In support, he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 801; and of this Court in Sunny (Minor) (supra). He submits that, therefore, Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act would also not come to the aid of the plaintiff.
20. The learned senior counsel for the defendant submits that it is also disputed that the alleged gift deed in favour of the plaintiff is executed by Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu. He submits that the authenticity of the said document is, therefore, itself an issue and has to be proved by the parties by leading their evidence.
21. As far as earlier suit is concerned, he submits that Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu, her husband Mr.Hardev Singh Sandhu, and the Late husband of the defendant- Sh.Sanjay Singh Sandhu, had all taken inconsistent pleas in their defence to the suit. This was even noticed by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment titled Shumita Didi Sandhu v. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3727. He submits that the suit was eventually settled between the parties, therefore, there was no decision on merit.
22. He submits that, in any case, an order passed on an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC cannot act as a res judicata and the defendant cannot be barred from raising a defence of HUF in the present suit. He submits that the plaintiff was not even a party to that suit.
23. He submits that a presumption under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act is a rebuttal one and would require a trial and an opportunity to the defendant to lead evidence in support of her defence.
24. He submits that the existence of the HUF is proved from the fact that initially the grandfather of the husband of the plaintiff- Late Sh.Naraian Singh Sandhu had sought to appoint his three sons as the nominees of the property at Model Town, Lahore, Pakistan, where-against the compensation was awarded by the Compensation Officer. It was only because of the objection from the Society where the plot was situated, that eventually he requested for only his late wife- Smt.Harnam Kaur to be appointed as his nominee. The compensation that was received under the Settlement Commission Order was in lieu of this property, therefore, anything which is purchased from the compensation would equally have the colour and status of being an HUF property.

Analysis & Finding
25. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
26. At the outset, it would be important to reiterate the principles that are applicable to an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and for a judgment to be pronounced on admission. The admissions of the defendant must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. The defence set up by the defendant should not require evidence for its determination. At the same time, if the Court finds that the defence raised is a moon-shine and even if the plea taken is accepted, the same cannot act as a lawful defence to the claim of the other party, a judgment on admission by evoking power under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC may be passed. The Court is required to ignore vague, evasive, and unspecific denials, as well as inconsistent pleas taken in the written statement and reply. The Court has to scrutinise the pleadings in their detail and has to come to the conclusion whether the defence raised by the defendant has any legs to stand on.
27. Explaining the scope and mandate of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Supreme Court in Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, (2022) 10 SCC 496, has held that the above provision confers a discretionary power to a Court who ‘may’, at any stage of the Suit, on the application of any party or on its own motion, and without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties, make such Order or give such Judgment as it may deem fit having regard to any admission made by the parties. The said power should be exercised only when specific, clear, and categorical admissions of facts and documents are on record. It is intended to relieve the parties from a full-fledged trial and to pass a Judgment/Decree without taking any evidence with an admission of facts raised by one side and admitted by the other.
28. In R.K. Markan v. Rajiv Kumar Markan & Anr., 2002 SCC OnLine Del 148, this Court reiterated that for the passing of a Decree on the basis of admission in the pleadings, the admission has to be unequivocal, unqualified, and should be taken as a whole and not in part.
29. In Monika Tyagi & Ors. v. Subhash Tyagi & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5400, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the plea taken by the defendant in the Written Statement can be considered by the Court to find out whether it discloses any meaningful defence or not. If the pleadings were vague and were in the nature of total moonshine, the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC would be attracted, and the Court would be fully justified in not sending the case for trial but to pass a Decree based on admission.
30. In the present case, as is evident from the submissions of the learned senior counsels for the parties, the only defence of the defendant to the suit is that the Suit Property is an HUF property, though purchased in the name of late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu. The existence of the HUF and how the said property can be claimed to be an HUF property is detailed by the defendant in her written statement as under:
“I. FACTUAL MATRIX
It is relevant to present the brief factual matrix about the family background of the parties to the litigation and the nature of the Hindu
Undivided family property:-
(a) That the parties to this litigation are the successors in interest of
their ancestors as is clear from the- family tree given below:
Jhanda Singh
(Great Grand Father of Sanjay Singh Sandhu since deceased-expired prior to 1912)

(b) Admittedly, Ms. Shumita Didi Sandhu alias Sumita Sandhu is the widow of Shri Sanjay Singh Sandhu and daughter-in-law of the lateHardev Singh Sandhu & Smt. Sheila Sandhu. Late Shri Jhanda Singh Sandhu was the great grandfather of Shri Sanjay Singh Sandhu and Shri Narain Singh was his grand father. The Plaintiff and Zoya Mohan Nursingh are the daughters of the late Hardev Singh Sandhu & Smt. Sheila Sandhu.
(c) That the Sandhu family belongs to the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, accordingly, deceased Husband of the Defendant was a co-parcenor in the ancestral HUF properties and had a birth right in HUF property as has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5124 of 2019 titled as ‘Arshnoor Singh Vs. Harpal Kaur’ decided on 01.07.2019.
(e) That the great grand-father of Shri Sanjay Singh Sandhu had big estates in district Lahore in the form of agricultural lands which were inherited by his sons Shri Naraian Singh Sandhu & Shri Thakur Singh. Late Shri Jhanda Singh is understood to have expired prior to 1912 and from the income of inherited properties the grandfather of Shri Sanjay Singh Sandhu acquired properties bearing No. 81G, 82G & 83G in Model Town, Lahore. Shri Naraian Singh expired in or about the year 1936 and ancestral properties fell into the hands of his sons and widow namely Shri Hardev Singh Sandhu etc and Harnam Kaur in Model Town Society regarding property No. G-81. The nomination of Smt. Harnam Kaur, wife of late Shri Naraian Singh was recorded in the records of Model Town Cooperative Society, Lahore in respect of his membership of the Society and in respect of Property no. 81-G, Model Town, Lahore as the representative of late Sh. Naraian Singh Sandhu’s family.
(f) That after partition of the country, Urban Claim Compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh (One Lakh) was determined by the Settlement Officer on 17.01.1952 in the name of Smt. Harnam Kaur who, was the manager of the family property and that via Rural Claims agricultural landswere allotted to the three sons of Shri Narain Singh Sandhu.
(g) That the amount of compensation mentioned above constituted thecorpus of the HUF and from the said corpus interim compensation was also received in the name of Smt. Harnam Kaur from which eventually after juggling names to their convenience through some manipulations and Exchange Deeds the family acquired property No. C-109, South Ext.Part-II, New Delhi for Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in 1959 in the name of Smt. Sheila Sandhu.
(h) As the Karta of the HUF Shri Hardev Singh Sandhu held General Power of Attorneys both from his mother and from his wife as early as 1959 and 1960 and managed the HUF properties by himself or intheir names. Properties were purchased from 1959 onwards in the name of Mr Hardev Singh Sandhu’s wife Smt Sheila Sandhu after separating the interests of Sh.Jagdev Singh Sandhu and Sh.Randev Singh Sandhu from the joint family properties of HUF.
(i) That residential plot No.V-B/8, Faridabad and the commercial plot No.8 at Block B, NH-5, Faridabad were allotted to the family in thename of Smt. Harnam Kaur and the value whereof was adjustedagainst thesaid compensation claim.
(j) That from the sale proceeds of South Extension property and fromthe income generated from the corpus of HUF funds – propertiesbearing plot Nos. 33 & 18A Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhiwere purchased by the karta of the family Shri Hardev Singh Sandhu in the name of his wife Smt. Sheila Sandhu in the year 1961.
(k) That with the corpus of HUF assets originating from determined rehabilitation claims compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) Sh.Hardev Singh Sandhu organized to purchase a good number of Insurance policies in the Joint names of himself and his wife based on them as collateral and guarantee – funds were also subsequently raised and arranged by the HUF family for development and construction of Property No. 18-A, Ring Road Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi vide a Mortgage Deed.
(1) The said plots in Faridabad are understood to have been disposed off by the Karta and consideration received there from is also understood to have been utilized by the family for purchase or improvement of joint family/ancestral properties.
(m) The Jor Bagh property bearing No. 202 consisting of Ground Floor cum Basement having the status of an HUF property was purchased after selling the previous HUF property the Sandhu Family residence namely 18 Ring Road Lajpat Nagar by the karta of the family Shri Hardev Singh Sandhu in the name of his wife Smt.Sheila Sandhu. It would not be out of place to mention here that initially for purchase of Jor Bagh Property, in anticipation of sale of HUF properties, Sh.Sanjay Singh Sandhu had also arranged funds from his friend Sh.Harjinder Singh Deol of Dehradun in the name of Smt.Sheila Sandhu and those funds were utilized for payment of the initial amounts to the seller of Jor Bagh Property to the family. Subsequently it is understood that some part payment has beenmade to Sh.Harjinder Singh Deol and substantial part thereof has not been refunded to him by the family till date.
(n) That it would not be out of place to mention here that till about 1972 Sh.Hardev Singh Sandhu also used to put his personal earnings as well in the hotchpotch of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). That considered from any view point the Jor Bagh Property retains the status of an HUF family property.”

31. From the above pleadings, the claim of the defendant that the Suit Property is an HUF property stems out of her plea that the great-grandfather of her husband had a big estate in District Lahore in form of an agricultural land which was inherited by his sons, Sh.Naraian Singh Sandhu and Sh.Thakur Singh. She also asserts that from the income of the inherited properties, Late Sh.Naraian Singh Sandhu, the grandfather of her husband, purchased properties in Model Town, Lahore, though in the name of his wife, Late Smt. Harnam Kaur. However, from her own documents, it is seen that the property was purchased by Sh.Naraian Singh Sandhu in his own name and not in the name of an HUF. There is also no document to support the plea that there ever existed an HUF between Sh.Jhanda Singh, great- grandfather of the husband of the defendant, and his sons. Merely because Sh.Naraian Singh Sandhu sought to nominate his three sons as his nominees in the said property, does not give rise to even an inference or an assumption that the property was an HUF property. In any event, on an objection raised by the Society, Late Sh.Naraian Singh Sandhu nominated only his wife, namely, late Smt.Harnam Kaur as the nominee for the said properties.
32. The defendant has also placed on record the application filed by Late Smt.Harnam Kaur before the Claims Officer under the Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, seeking compensation for the properties left behind by her in Pakistan. The said application claims the property in Model Town, Lahore to be under the sole ownership of Late Smt.Harnam Kaur. She, in fact, categorically states in her application/affidavit in support of the application, that the said property is not an HUF property and she is not a part of any HUF. It is on this application that she alone was awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Claims Officer vide its Order dated 17.01.1952. The said compensation, therefore, cannot be treated as an HUF property. The entire edifice of the defence of the defendant is, therefore, false and remains totally unsubstantiated and in fact, contradicted by her own documents.
33. Even otherwise, Late Smt.Harnam Kaur executed a General Power of Attorney dated 07.10.1960 appointing her son Late Sh.Hardev Singh Sandhu as her attorney. In the said document as well, she describes herself to be the sole owner of the plot at Faridabad. The said property was sold by Sh.Hardev Singh Sandhu, as power attorney of late Smt.Harnam Kaur, vide a Sale Deed dated 18.06.1963, describing her as the sole owner of the said property. Much prior to this sale, Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu purchased the property bearing No.C-109, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi vide registered Sale Deed dated 29.04.1959. The said property was purchased in the sole name of Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu. The said property was, thereafter, sold by her vide a registered Sale Deed dated 02.01.1961, again describing herself as a sole owner of the said property. She then purchased the property at Lajpat Nagar in her own name, vide registered Sale Deed dated 04.02.1961. The defendant has herself placed on record a Mortgage Deed dated 15.02.1963, whereby Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu obtained loan from the Life Insurance Corporation of India for purposes of construction over the land at Lajpat Nagar. The said property was later sold by her vide a registered Sale Deed dated 18.11.2010. She purchased the suit property vide a registered Sale Deed dated 06.05.2005, again in her individual name. All these facts are emerging from the documents filed by the defendant herself. These documents clearly show that the plea of existence of an HUF or that the Suit Property belonging to such HUF, is a total moon-shine defence.
34. In Rajeev Tandon (supra), this Court, while dealing with an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC wherein the defendant had taken similar plea of the property being an HUF property, held that the defendant who claims that the property in question was bought from the joint family property has to specifically plead how the existence of joint family property came into being and other such material and relevant circumstances; existence of an HUF cannot be used as a mantra to raise a defence to a suit; it cannot be as a self-serving averment without any basis. The Court held as under:
“29. The observations of the coordinate Bench and the Division Bench are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Except for a bald plea in the written statement that the suit property has been purchased from funds siphoned off from the family business and another plea raised namely that the suit property was purchased after disposal of the joint family property, there is no other plea raised in the written statement to explain what right the defendant has to reside in the suit property. There is no averment in pleadings as to when the HUF joint family property came into existence especially whether the HUF came into existence prior to 1956 or post 1956 on account of throwing of properties into a common hotch-potch. There is no reference to any Income Tax returns filed by any of the ancestors whereby the properties were shown as HUF/joint family properties.

30. I may also note that the suit property was bought by a registered conveyance deed on 14.06.2001. The defendant came back from her matrimonial home in 2005. She has now in 2017 filed a suit seeking to raise pleas about existence of a joint family property/family business being the source of funds to claim rights in the suit property. The plea is clearly belated. There is also no challenge to the registered deed conveying title to the plaintiffs dated 14.06.2001. The vague unsubstantiated pleas claiming purchase of the property from siphoning off of the family business or sale of HUF property cannot be allowed to be sustained. Such pleas does not constitute any meaningful defence.

31. It is settled law that while considering an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC the court can ignore vague and unsubstantiated pleas.Order 12 Rule 6 CPC reads as follows:-
“6. Judgment on admissions.-(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of an party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such Order or give such judgment as It may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.”

32. The Division Bench of this court in Vijay Myne vs. Satya Bhushan Kaura, 142 (2007) DLT 483 (DB) held as follows:-
“12. It is not necessary to burden this judgment by extracting from the aforesaid authoritative pronouncent as the learned Single Judge has accomplished this exercise with prudence and dexterity. Purpose would be served by summarizing the legal position which is that the purpose and objective in enacting the provision like Order 12 Rule 6, CPC is to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment on admission when the admissions are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to get the decree, inasmuch as such a provision is enacted to render speedy judgments and save the parties from going through the rigmarole of a protracted trial. The admissions can be in the pleadings or otherwise, namely in documents, correspondence etc. These can be oral or in writing. The admissions can even be constructive admissions and need not be specific or expressive which can be inferred from the vague and evasive denial in the written statement while answering specific pleas raised by the plaintiff. The admissions can even be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt, for this purpose, the Court has to scrutinize the pleadings in their detail and has to come to the conclusion that the admissions are unequivocal, unqualified and unambiguous. In the process, the Court is also required to ignore vague, evasive and unspecific denials as well as inconsistent pleas taken in the written statement and replies. Even a contrary stand taken while arguing the matter would be required to be ignored.”

33. Similarly, reference may also be had to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Delhi Jal Board v. Surendra P. Malik, 104 (2003) DLT 151 wherein this court had laid down the following tests:-
“9. The test, therefore, is (i) whether admissions of fact arise in the suit (ii) whether such admissions are plain unambiguous and unequivocal, (iii) whether the defense set up is such that it requires evidence for determination of the issues and (iv) whether objections raised against rendering the judgment are such which go to the root of the matter or whether these are inconsequential making it impossible for the party to succeed even if entertained. It is immaterial at what stage the judgment is sought or whether admissions of fact are found expressly in the pleadings or not because such admissions could be gathered even constructively for the purpose of rendering a speedy judgment.”

34. Reference may also be had to the observation of this court in the case of Sagar Ghambhir v. Sukhdev Singh Ghambir (supra) where this court held as follows: 
“10. In view of the above, it is clear that the suit as per the pleadings, documents and the undisputed/admitted position does not show existence of a cause of action with respect to HUF and its properties. At the cost of repetition, and also so stated in para 12 in the judgment in the case of Surender Kumar (supra), it is to be noted that Courts are flooded with litigations which are frivolous in nature, simply by making vague and illusionary allegations of facts as to the traditional concept of HUF and which no longer exists after 1956 as per the ratios of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Yudhishter (supra) and Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others (supra). Obviously, such litigations are in the nature of speculations only and are against the spirit of the Benami Act which intends to give finality to the ownership of the properties in the name of a particular person by means of title deeds in the name of a particular person. As per the pleadings and admitted documents in the present case, there is no legal cause of action with the necessary ingredients existing/averred with respect to existence of HUF and its properties, and it may be again noted at the cost of repetition that there are only general and vague averments in paras 2 and 3 of the plaint, of the defendant No.1 inheriting ancestral properties in Pakistan without giving details as to what those imaginary properties were. The suit on the basis of such imaginary cause of action cannot be allowed to continue and cause harassment to the defendants.”

35. Clearly, vague, unsubstantiated and evasive pleas have been held to be sufficient ground to hold that there are admissions in the pleadings and a decree is liable to be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. As noted above, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are vague, inconsistent and do not in any manner whatsoever show that any worthwhile defence is raised or any right exists in favour of the defendant to enable her to continue to occupy the suit property.

36. In my opinion, the defence taken by the defendant is vague and unsubstantiated and a mere attempt to prolong the present litigation. Accordingly, no defence is available to the defendant. The present application under Order 6 Rule 12 CPC is liable to be allowed.”

35. In Sunny (Minor) (supra), the court reiterated as under:
“7(ii). This position of law alongwith facts as to how the properties are HUF properties was required to be stated as a positive statement in the plaint of the present case, but it is seen that except uttering a mantra of the properties inherited by defendant No. 1 being ‘ancestral’ properties and thus the existence of HUF, there is no statement or a single averment in the plaint as to when was this HUF which is stated to own the HUF properties came into existence or was created ie whether it existed even before 1956 or it was created for the first time after 1956 by throwing the property/properties into a common hotchpotch. This aspect and related aspects in detail I am discussing hereinafter.
xxxx
11. I must, at the risk of repetition, note that there exists the legal requirement of discharge of the onus of proof by atleast leading some credible documentary evidence in a case where partition is sought of valuable immovable properties, and oral evidence is not to be treated by courts as sufficient, inasmuch as, rights in immovable properties of defendants cannot be destroyed on account of self-serving oral statements and stand of the plaintiffs that there existed an HUF and HUF had various properties which are mentioned in para 15 of the plaint.”

36. In Bhagwat Sharan (supra), the Supreme Court held that the burden of proving that an HUF existed and the properties in question are HUF properties lies heavily on the person who asserts the same. To prove the same, such person will have to not only show the jointness of the property but also jointness of family and jointness of living together. The defendant has clearly failed to meet the said test in the present case.
37. In addition to the above, Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as under:
“14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.?(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation.?In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.”

38. In S.P. Saigal v. Sunil Saigal & Anr., 2001 SCC OnLine Del 661, this Court held as under:
“46. I am afraid the contention that Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act does not give any ownership right to any female member to the exclusion of all other legal heirs is difficult to accept as these rights not only confine to live during the life time but also make her full owner whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act but the condition precedent is that the widow should have been in possession at the relevant time.
47. In the present case the property was acquired in 1966 by the mother of the plaintiff under registered sale deed and thereafter it was gifted to the plaintiff under a gift deed in November, 1979 and since it was her absolute property the title of the mother of the plaintiff cannot be challenged.
48. Admittedly she had no independent source of income. She became widow in 1935 i.e. much before the claims in respect of properties held by her husband were compensated. Thus she was absolute owner of the suit property which she gifted to the plaintiff in the year 1979 and more so there was no challenge to those title documents for decades together. Further the documents produced by the plaintiff show that the loan was raised by the plaintiff for the purpose of additional construction of 1 1/2 storey in the house gifted to him by his mother and this shows that in fact he spent his own money because of his absolute ownership of the property flowing from a gift deed. On the contrary no documentary evidence of any kind has been produced by the defendant to show any contribution made by the defendant or his children for construction of the house.
49. Even otherwise it is admitted position that the mother of the plaintiff who became widow in 1935 was possessed of the property in 1966. Even if it is assumed tohave been purchased through claims compensation received in lieu of ancestral property and was not in any manner fettered by contingencies contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus she was the absolute owner of the said property when she gifted it to the plaintiff.”

39. Though the learned senior counsel for the defendant is correct in his submission that the property inherited prior to 1956 would be governed by Mitakshara law alone and shall be a coparcenary property in the hands of the coparceners, however, the said plea has no application to the facts of the present case. As observed hereinabove, the defendant has failed to factually substantiate the plea that the suit property, in any manner, is connected with an HUF that is claimed to have existed in Pakistan.
40. The challenge of the defendant to the Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff also cannot be accepted. In the written statement, there is a vague denial of the Gift Deed, with the following averment:
“b) That the Plaintiff has not come before this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Court. That the alleged Gift Deed has been procured fraudulently by the Plaintiff from her ailing mother Smt. Sheila Sandhu who at present is aged about 95 years and suffers from Alzheimer’s dementia and is bed ridden for the last more than 13 years and is surviving with the assistance of care-giver aides. The purported gift deed etc is evidently not the act of a free mind and the same has been fabricated and forged to serve ulterior motives. The factum, legality and validity of the alleged Gift: deed etc are seriously disputed and hence denied. It is submitted that the suit property has been purchased from the funds generated from the corpus of the ancestral/joint family property held by the ancestors of Sandhu family in undivided India, therefore even otherwise the question of transferring the suit property by way of alleged Gift Deed in favour of Plaintiff or any other person does not arise. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground alone.”

41. The Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff was executed by Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu on 29.01.2008. The written statement has been filed by the defendant on 20.12.2019. Barring a vague plea that the Gift Deed has been procured fraudulently and the same is fabricated and forged, no particulars in this regard have been mentioned or substantiated by the defendant. In terms of Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC, such vague plea, therefore, cannot be accepted.

Conclusion
42. In view of the above, I find that the defendant has not been able to raise any substantial defence to the suit filed by the plaintiff which may require the parties to face a trial in the Suit. The defence raised by the defendant can at best be described as a moon-shine for which the plaintiff cannot be relegated to the rigours of a trial. It would, in fact, be a denial of justice to the plaintiff to not pass a decree of possession in her favour at this stage itself.
43. For the reasons stated hereinabove, therefore, the application is allowed, and a decree directing that the defendant would hand over the vacant physical possession of the suit property, that is, Ground Floor of Block No. 172, Plot No. 202, Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 110003 is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
44. There shall be no orders as to costs.
CS(OS) 452/2019 & I.A. 12124/2019, I.A.12125/2019, I.A. 12126/2019

45. In view of the above order, the only issue that remains for adjudication is as under:
(a) whether the plaintiff is entitled to use and occupation charges from the defendant till the date the defendant hands over the vacant physical possession of the Suit Property to the plaintiff? If so, for what period and at what rate?
46. The parties shall file their respective list of witnesses within a period of two weeks.
47. The plaintiff shall file the evidence by way of affidavit of its witnesses within a period of four weeks thereafter.
48. List for recording of evidence of the parties before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 4th October, 2024.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
AUGUST 01, 2024/ns/as

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 27 of 27