Admissions in pleadings can justify decree without trial; permissive possession cannot mature into adverse possession without hostile title assertion.

Order XII Rule 6 CPC permits judgment on clear, unambiguous and even constructive admissions in the pleadings and surrounding circumstances, so a decree can be passed without trial where the record contains sufficient admissions. Applying that principle, the Delhi High Court upheld the decree because the occupant's own pleadings showed permissive use of the temple premises through his father, while inconsistent stands on inheritance, gift and adverse possession undermined the defence. The claim of title by gift failed for want of any registered instrument, and adverse possession was rejected because permissive possession cannot become adverse without a clear hostile assertion for the requisite period. The appellate challenge failed and mesne profits remained for determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be passed on the basis of the appellant's pleadings and admissions; (ii) Whether the appellant's claim of ownership based on gift and adverse possession was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be passed on the basis of the appellant's pleadings and admissions.

Analysis: Order XII Rule 6 permits judgment on clear, unambiguous and unequivocal admissions, including constructive admissions arising from the pleadings and surrounding circumstances. The appellant's own plaint showed that his father's occupation of the suit premises was connected with puja and seva in the temple and was permissive in nature. In the later written statement, the appellant also took inconsistent stands, first asserting inheritance from his father and alternatively claiming adverse possession, while no registered gift deed was produced to support the alleged gift. These materials supplied sufficient admissions for decree without trial.

Conclusion: The decree under Order XII Rule 6 was validly passed and is upheld, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's claim of ownership based on gift and adverse possession was sustainable.

Analysis: The claim of gift was unsupported by any written and registered instrument and was introduced belatedly, making it untenable. The plea of adverse possession also failed because permissive occupation cannot become adverse without a clear hostile assertion against the true owner, and the appellant's own case showed that the occupation originated permissively through his father. The period of possession asserted by the appellant was also inconsistent with a continuous hostile title for the requisite period. The pleaded defence was therefore self-contradictory and legally insufficient.

Conclusion: The appellant did not establish title by gift or by adverse possession, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed, the decree in favour of the temple was affirmed, and the matter was sent back only for adjudication of mesne profits.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree on admissions can be granted on clear, unequivocal and even constructive admissions in the pleadings, and permissive possession cannot ripen into adverse possession without a hostile assertion of title for the requisite period.

---