The Supreme Court has set aside a Delhi High Court order that had directed a family member to pay ₹44.79 lakh to his sister based on statements made in a written statement during a property dispute. The Court held that the alleged admission was not clear enough to justify a decree without a full trial and that several factual issues required evidence.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi on May 29, 2026.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose within a Hindu family after agricultural land measuring over 31 bighas was sold in 2007 for approximately ₹15.31 crore. One of the daughters, Dayawati, later filed a civil suit seeking partition of family properties and recovery of money, claiming entitlement to a share in the sale proceeds.
During the proceedings, her brother Daya Ram stated in a written statement that under a family settlement he had received ₹3 crore from the sale proceeds. Relying on this statement, Dayawati later sought a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), arguing that he had received more than his lawful share and was liable to return ₹44.79 lakh.
An Additional District Judge rejected the request in 2017, holding that the dispute involved issues requiring trial and evidence. However, the Delhi High Court reversed that decision and passed a recovery decree against Daya Ram.
Before the Supreme Court, the central question was whether Daya Ram's statement regarding receipt of ₹3 crore amounted to a clear and unconditional admission that could justify a decree without trial under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
The Court examined the scope of the provision and reiterated that judgments on admission are intended only for cases where there is no real dispute requiring evidence.
The Bench emphasized that not every statement made by a party automatically qualifies as an admission capable of resulting in a decree.
"The admission must be categorical, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal," the Court observed while discussing the principles governing Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
According to the Court, Daya Ram's statement merely indicated that he had received money under an alleged family settlement. It did not contain any acknowledgment that the amount exceeded his lawful share or that he owed any money to the plaintiff.
The Bench further noted that the written statement had to be read as a whole. When viewed in its entirety, Daya Ram had disputed the plaintiff's claim and maintained that he had received only his share under the family arrangement. Therefore, isolating one sentence and treating it as a conclusive admission was legally unsustainable.
The Court also pointed out that the entire sale consideration had been received by the father in his personal account. Questions regarding distribution of the proceeds, entitlement of individual family members, and whether any amount was held on behalf of the plaintiff were all disputed factual issues.
These questions, the Bench said, could only be resolved through evidence and not merely on the basis of pleadings.
The Court further noted that the High Court itself had earlier framed issues for trial regarding recovery of money and entitlement to interest. The very fact that issues had been framed demonstrated the existence of disputed questions requiring adjudication.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the alleged admission relied upon by the plaintiff was neither categorical nor unequivocal. The dispute involved substantial questions of fact that required a full trial.
The Bench concluded:
"The alleged admission relied upon by respondent No.1 were neither categorical nor unequivocal so as to justify a decree for recovery under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC."
Accordingly, the Court set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment dated April 16, 2019, and restored the order of the Additional District Judge dismissing the application for a decree on admission. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations were limited to the issue before it and that the trial court would decide the pending suit independently on its merits.
Case Details:
Case Title: Pushpa & Ors. v. Dayawati & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 26304 of 2019
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Decision Date: May 29, 2026
