Decree on admission requires an unequivocal admission; disputed joint family character and limitation issues must proceed to trial.

Order XII Rule 6 CPC permits a decree on admission only where the admission is clear, categorical, unconditional and unequivocal; where pleadings raise a bona fide dispute over whether properties are self-acquired or acquired from joint family or business funds, summary deletion from a partition schedule is inappropriate. The limitation plea under Article 58 of the Limitation Act was also not capable of final determination at this stage, because the declaration claim was integral to the partition dispute and depended on facts concerning exclusion from joint family property. The summary relief application was therefore rejected, and issues of title, joint family character, and limitation were left for trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for deletion of the properties from the partition schedule; (ii) Whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for deletion of the properties from the partition schedule.

Analysis: Relief under Order XII Rule 6 requires an admission that is clear, categorical, unconditional and unequivocal. The pleadings disclosed a dispute as to whether the properties were self-acquired exclusively in the applicant's name or were purchased from joint family/business funds for the benefit of the family. The plaintiff's averments regarding joint family business, common funds, and properties held in trust for the family made the question unsuitable for summary disposal on admission.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to decree on admission, and the request for deletion of the properties was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The suit combined a prayer for declaration with a prayer for partition, and the declaration issue was integral to deciding the partition claim. On the admitted pleadings, it could not be held that the suit was barred under Article 58. Limitation in such a matter depended on facts bearing upon exclusion from joint family property and was therefore not capable of final determination at this stage.

Conclusion: The claim was not held to be barred by limitation at this stage, and the question was left for trial.

Final Conclusion: The application seeking summary relief on admission was not fit to be granted, and the controversy over title, joint family character, and limitation was left for adjudication at trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Summary decree on admission can be granted only where the admission is unequivocal, and where the pleadings disclose a bona fide dispute as to joint family character, trust, and limitation, the matter must proceed to trial.

---