--- title: "SC: Decree On Admission Cannot Be Granted Where Triable Issues Require Evidence" date: 2026-06-29 author: "King Stubb & Kasiva" url: https://ksandk.com/newsletter/order-xii-rule-6-cpc-decree-on-admission/ --- # SC: Decree On Admission Cannot Be Granted Where Triable Issues Require Evidence Posted On - 29 June, 2026 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva **BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA** ***Pushpa & Ors. v. Dayawati & Ors.*** **Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 26304 of 2019** **Judgment Dated: May 29, 2026** ## Summary The Supreme Court held that a **decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC** can only be granted where the admission relied upon is clear, unequivocal, and unconditional. Setting aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment, the Court observed that the dispute involved multiple triable issues relating to entitlement, distribution of sale proceeds, and liability among family members, all of which required appreciation of evidence. The decision reiterates that courts must exercise caution before bypassing the ordinary process of trial and that **Order XII Rule 6** is intended to be invoked only in cases involving unmistakable admissions. ## Facts of the Case - The dispute arose out of **sale proceeds** received from ancestral agricultural land sold for approximately Rs.15 crore. - The Plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.45 lakh, claiming entitlement to a larger share of the sale proceeds. - Reliance was placed on a written statement filed by Defendant No.3, wherein he stated that family members had received Rs.3 crore each pursuant to a family arrangement. - The Plaintiff filed an application under **Order XII Rule 6 CPC** seeking a decree on admission. - The Trial Court dismissed the application and held that the controversy required evidence. - The Delhi High Court reversed the Trial Court’s order and granted a money decree against Defendant No.3. ## Issues Before the Court - Whether the written statement contained a **clear admission** sufficient to justify a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. - Whether the dispute involved **triable issues** requiring adjudication through evidence. ## Judgment ### Admissions Must Be Clear and Unequivocal - **Admissions under Order XII Rule 6 must be clear and unequivocal:** The Court reiterated that a decree on admission can only be granted where the admission is categorical, unconditional and leaves no room for controversy. - **Receipt of money did not automatically establish liability:** Although Defendant No.3 had stated that family members received certain amounts from the sale proceeds, such statement did not by itself establish a legal obligation to pay the Plaintiff. ### Disputed Entitlement and Triable Issues - **Entitlement to the sale proceeds remained disputed:** Questions relating to the Plaintiff’s share, the source of the payments and the legal consequences of the alleged distribution remained contested. - **Multiple factual controversies required evidence:** The Court observed that the dispute involved several questions requiring examination of documents, surrounding circumstances and oral evidence. ### Role of the Trial Court and High Court - **Trial Court correctly identified triable issues:** The Trial Court had concluded that the controversy could only be adjudicated after appreciation of evidence and therefore declined to pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. - **High Court exceeded the permissible scope of interference:** While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the High Court effectively determined disputed factual issues without trial, which was impermissible. ### Order XII Rule 6 as an Exception - **Order XII Rule 6 is an exception to the normal rule of trial:** The Court emphasised that the provision must be applied cautiously and only in cases where liability is evident from the pleadings themselves. - **Matter required adjudication on merits:** The decree passed by the High Court was therefore set aside and the dispute was directed to proceed in accordance with law. ## Analysis The judgment serves as an important reminder that **Order XII Rule 6 CPC** is an exception to the ordinary rule that disputes should be resolved through trial. Courts cannot selectively rely upon isolated statements in pleadings while ignoring the broader factual controversies that surround them. The decision reinforces the principle that **decrees on admission** should be granted only where liability is beyond dispute. *Last Updated on 29 June, 2026* --- ## Office Locations - [New Delhi](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-delhi/) (HQ): +91-11-41318190 | info@ksandk.com - [Mumbai](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-mumbai/): 3 offices (Nariman Point, Lower Parel, Andheri) | mumbai@ksandk.com - [Bangalore](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-bangalore/): bangalore@ksandk.com - [Chennai](https://ksandk.com/locations/chennai/): chennai@ksandk.com - [Hyderabad](https://ksandk.com/locations/hyderabad/): hyderabad@ksandk.com - [Pune](https://ksandk.com/locations/pune/): pune@ksandk.com - [Kochi](https://ksandk.com/locations/kochi/): kochi@ksandk.com ## Contact - [Contact Page](https://ksandk.com/contact-us/) - General: info@ksandk.com | +91-11-41318190 - WhatsApp: +91-7428567444 - [Privacy Statement](https://ksandk.com/privacy-statement/) - [Terms of Use](https://ksandk.com/terms-of-use/)