Partition on admissions and presumed joint possession: clear co-ownership admissions can justify a preliminary decree absent proved ouster.

A preliminary decree for partition may be passed on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 where co-ownership and equal shares are clear, unambiguous and even constructively admitted in pleadings, connected proceedings, or prior orders; on that basis, the Court granted partition relief. In a co-ownership dispute, possession of one co-owner is treated in law as possession of all unless ouster or exclusion is clearly proved, so the plaint was not liable to rejection and no additional court fee was directed. The court-fee objection was therefore rejected and further steps for division by metes and bounds were directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a preliminary decree for partition could be passed on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected or additional court fee directed on the ground that the plaintiff was out of possession and excluded from joint possession.

Issue (i): Whether a preliminary decree for partition could be passed on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The admissions of co-ownership and equal shares were found in the pleadings, in the connected suit, and in prior orders recorded in the presence of counsel. The governing principle applied was that admissions need not be express in the same suit and may be gathered from pleadings or other documents, including constructive admissions, if they are clear, unambiguous and unequivocal. On that basis, the Court held that the plaintiff had established entitlement to a speedy decree to the extent admitted.

Conclusion: The application under Order 12 Rule 6 was allowed and a preliminary decree for partition was passed in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected or additional court fee directed on the ground that the plaintiff was out of possession and excluded from joint possession.

Analysis: In a co-ownership dispute, possession of one co-owner is in law possession of all unless ouster or exclusion is proved. The plaint and surrounding materials did not establish a clear exclusion of the plaintiff from joint possession. Since ouster was not shown with sufficient certainty, the basis for insisting on rejection of the plaint or further court fee was absent.

Conclusion: The application under Order 7 Rule 11 was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted partition relief on the basis of admissions while rejecting the objection based on alleged ouster and court-fee deficiency, and directed further steps for division of the property by metes and bounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree on admissions may be passed on clear, unambiguous and even constructive admissions found in pleadings or other materials, and in a co-ownership dispute the law presumes joint possession unless ouster or exclusion is proved.

---