Summary
The Court upheld an eviction decree on admissions where the defendants denied being tenants “now” because they claimed ownership under an agreement to sell, while their specific-performance suit remained pending. On the pleadings as a whole, the claimed change of status admitted the plaintiff’s existing ownership and the first defendant’s tenancy; the agreement claim did not establish completed ownership. The decree was expressly made subject to the specific-performance suit’s outcome, and any existing injunction in that suit remained effective unless modified by the competent court.
Issues
- Whether the written statement contained sufficient admissions of ownership and tenancy for a decree under Order XII Rule 6.
- Whether the pending specific-performance suit established the second defendant’s ownership.
- How the decree interacted with that pending suit and any injunction granted there.
Provisions considered
- Order XII Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The written statement, read as a whole, admitted the plaintiff’s ownership and the first defendant’s tenancy notwithstanding the defendants’ asserted subsequent ownership under the disputed agreement. The decree was upheld with express safeguards concerning the other suit. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
Held
- The defendants asserted that they were no longer tenants because the plaintiff had agreed to sell the property, and the second defendant sought specific performance against the plaintiff. Read together, those pleadings admitted the plaintiff’s ownership and the existing tenancy rather than demonstrating an accomplished change of title. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The second defendant’s asserted agreement and pending suit did not make her the owner on this record. Until the claim was successfully established through the appropriate decree and conveyance, the plaintiff’s ownership and first defendant’s tenancy continued for the purpose of the admissions considered. (¶ 9)
- The eviction decree remained subject to the outcome of the second defendant’s specific-performance suit. If she obtained the appropriate decree, including possession if sought and granted, its consequences would follow subject to appeal. Any injunction in that suit was expressly preserved unless modified by its trial court; the judgment did not authorise disregarding it. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Result
Appeal dismissed and decree on admissions confirmed, subject to the pending specific-performance suit and preservation of any injunction there unless duly modified. No costs.