MOHD. RAZA & ANR. versus GEETA @ GEETA DEVI

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 04-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
MOHD. RAZA & ANR.
v.
GEETA @ GEETA DEVI
(Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 2021)
OCTOBER 04, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or.XII r.6 – Decree on
admission – Respondent-plaintiff filed suit for possession,
mandatory/ permanent injunction and mesne profit with respect to
suit property against defendants-appellants claiming himself to be
the owner of suit property and claiming that defendant No.1 was
tenant and has sub-let the suit property/premises in favour of
defendant No.2 – In the written statement, case of defendants was
that they were not ‘now’ the tenant of the plaintiff but the actual
owner of suit property – It was further stated therein that defendant
no.2 had purchased the suit property from plaintiff and suit for
specific performance of contract against the plaintiff was pending
for adjudication before trial court – After the written statement was
filed by defendants, plaintiff filed an application before trial court
to pass decree on admission under Or.XII r.6 of CPC – Trial court
dismissed the application holding that defendant no.2 did not make
any admission regarding ownership of the plaintiff and their tenancy
in the suit property – High Court, however, allowed the revision
petition and passed decree for eviction against the defendants –
On appeal, held: In the written statement, it was specifically stated
by defendants that they were not ‘now’ the tenant of the plaintiff
but the actual owner of the suit property – It is not in dispute and
even it was the case of defendants that defendant No.2 had instituted
the suit for specific performance against the plaintiff with respect
to the suit property – Therefore, at this stage, defendant No.2 cannot
be said to be the owner as her suit for specific performance was
pending adjudication – Unless and until a decree for specific
performance is passed in her favour and/or the sale deed is executed
pursuant to such a decree, she cannot be said to be owner of the
suit property and plaintiff continues to be the owner and defendant
No.1 continues to be the tenant – Therefore, the aforesaid is rightly
treated as an admission on behalf of defendants with respect to
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 772
772
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
773
ownership of plaintiff and tenancy of defendant No.1 – High Court
as such has rightly passed the decree on admission – However,
decree passed by High Court shall be subject to the outcome of the
suit for specific performance filed by defendant no.2.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Till the suit for specific performance is decided in
favour of the defendants, more particularly defendant No. 2, she
cannot be said to be the owner and that therefore the plaintiff-
respondent continues to be the owner and defendant No.1
continues to be the tenant. Therefore, the aforesaid is rightly
treated as an admission on behalf of the defendants with respect
to the ownership of the plaintiff and that defendant No.1 is a
tenant. Therefore, the High Court as such has rightly passed the
decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC which in
the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be
erroneous. However, at the same time, when the substantive suit
filed by defendant No. 2 against the plaintiff for specific
performance is pending, the decree passed by the High Court
shall always be subject to the outcome of the said suit filed by
defendant No. 2 against the plaintiff and if ultimately she succeeds
in the suit, and a decree for specific performance is passed and
the Trial Court passes the decree for possession (if prayed), then
necessary consequences shall follow and the plaintiff, subject
to filing the appeal, shall have to abide by the decree that may
be passed in the suit for specific performance. [Paras 8, 9]
[778-F-H; 779-A-B]
Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd. (2011) 15 SCC 273
: [2011] 7 SCR 60 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 7 SCR 60
 referred to
Para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6098 of
2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2019 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Revision Petition No.175 of 2019 & CM
Application No.35781 of 2019.
MOHD. RAZA & ANR. v. GEETA @ GEETA DEVI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
Sanobar Ali, Anurag Rawat, Irshad Ahmad, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Harsh Kumar, Ms. Sikha Gogoi, Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Advs. for
the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.