Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh 2025 case gained attention for its application of Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code which allows courts to adjudicate based on judicial admissions made by the parties, either in writing or orally, without needing a formal application. The issue of whether a suit could be dismissed based on admissions by the plaintiff that negated their own claim and whether such action could be taken suo motu, brought the case into the legal spotlight. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court.

Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh 2025 Introduction

Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh 2025 is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court which involves a legal dispute over ancestral and self-acquired properties claimed by the appellant, Sharda Hooda, under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Sharda Hooda sought partition and possession of several properties that she claimed were owned by her late father, Major General Budh Singh, and asserted her coparcenary interest. The legal battle has drawn attention due to the invocation of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC which led to significant legal questions regarding judicial admissions, dismissal of suits, and scope of Order XII Rule 6 in contrast to Order VII Rule 11.

Download Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh PDF

The case at hand centres around a legal dispute over ancestral and self-acquired properties claimed by the Appellant, Sharda Hooda under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. She sought partition and possession of several properties allegedly owned by her late father, Major General Budh Singh and claimed a coparcenary interest. The following are the facts of Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh -

Background of the Dispute

The present appeal originated from the judgment dated 15th November 2022 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which upheld the dismissal decree dated 5th May 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge. The suit was dismissed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with the liberty to approach the competent court at Sonepat, Haryana regarding land situated in Barota.

Nature of the Suit

The suit was filed by the Appellant-Plaintiff, Sharda Hooda under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and sought:

• Partition
• Injunction
• Accounts

The suit involved five immovable properties allegedly owned by the father of the Appellant, Late Major General Budh Singh.

Properties in Dispute

The Plaintiff sought partition of the following properties:

Parties to the Suit

The following were the parties to the suit:

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Sharda Hooda, daughter of Major General Budh Singh
• Respondents: Legal heirs of Anup Singh (her brother) and other family members
• Respondent No. 6 (Saroj Salkan): Plaintiff’s sister who supported her case

Family Tree

Major General Budh Singh (died on 8th November, 1988) had the following descendants:

• Son: Anup Singh (deceased)
  • Wife: Uma Singh (R-1)
  • Children: Sanjeev Singh (R-2), Rajeev Singh (R-3), Renu Singh (R-4), Madhu Eggbert (R-5) and Anju Singh
• Daughter: Sharda Hooda (Appellant-Plaintiff)
• Daughter: Saroj Salkan (R-6)

Trial Court Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the suit without framing issues and invoked Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Court states that:

• Kalupur and Dairy Plot Properties: No identifiable particulars or documentary evidence was provided under Order VII Rules 1 & 3 CPC which rendered the claim unmaintainable.
• HUF and Ancestral Property Claims: The Plaintiff failed to plead which properties were inherited prior to 1956 to establish a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). There was no assertion that the father had thrown the properties into a common hotchpotch.
• Previous Decree Challenge (1977): The Plaintiff’s challenge to the 1977 decree was held to be barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act.
• C-38, Anand Niketan: The property was titled in the name of Anup Singh and the claim was barred by Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act due to lack of evidence proving it was HUF property.
• Barota Property: As it was located in Sonepat, Haryana, jurisdiction lay with the local court under Section 16 of Civil Procedure Code.

Appellate Proceedings Before the Division Bench

The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and noted that:

• The Appellant failed to address primary issues relating to pleadings and limitations.
• Though the counsel of the Appellant cited over 30 judgments on HUF and coparcenary property, no relevant legal arguments or case law were submitted to refute the grounds of dismissal.
• The Appellant was unable to overcome the procedural and jurisdictional defects that formed the basis of the judgement of the Trial Court.
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court and challenged the decision of the High Court.

Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh 2025 Legal Issues

The following issues were addressed in Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh 2025 -

• Scope and Applicability of Order XII Rule 6 CPC :The Supreme Court examined whether a court can dismiss a suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, based on judicial admissions made by the plaintiff, rather than merely passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff based on the admissions of the Defendant.
• Need for a Formal Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: The Court in Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh analysed whether the exercise of power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC requires a formal application by the defendant or if the court can act suo motu.
• Distinction between Order XII Rule 6 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC :The Supreme Court also examined whether a suit can be dismissed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, or whether such dismissal should be exclusively governed by Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which deals with rejection of plaint that disclose no cause of action.

Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code played an important role in Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh 2025. The following is the analysis of this provision -

• Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code: Judgements on Admissions

Order XII Rule 6 states that where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

The Supreme Court in Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh noted that this provision empowers the courts not only to pass decrees in favour of the plaintiff based on the defendant’s admissions but also to dismiss suits based on admissions made by the plaintiff that negate the cause of action.

Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh 2025 Judgment and Impact

On 6th May, 2025, the 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan in Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh held that under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the Courts have broad authority not only to grant decrees in favour of a plaintiff based on clear admissions by the defendant but also to dismiss a suit when the plaintiff’s own admissions undermine the claim.

The Supreme Court referred to the precedent set in Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal explained that this discretionary power can be exercised suo motu and at any stage of the proceedings, without requiring a formal application from any party.

In the present case of Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh the Trial Court had dismissed the suit after noting admissions by the plaintiff that effectively negated any viable cause of action. This dismissal was done without a formal application from the defendant and was later affirmed by the High Court. Upon appeal, the Appellant contended that such dismissal should have been under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and not Order XII Rule 6 and that a formal application was necessary.

However, the Supreme Court in Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh rejected these contentions and held that Order XII Rule 6 CPC confers sufficient discretion on courts to act even without such formalities. The Court reiterated that the provision is not only for passing judgments based on defendant’s admissions but also for dismissing suits where plaintiff’s admissions weaken or invalidate the claim.

As a result, the Supreme Court in Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh dismissed the appeal and upheld the decisions of the Trial Court and High Court.

Conclusion

In Saroj Salkan vs Huma Singh 2025 the Supreme Court on 6th May, 2025 upheld the decisions of the Trial Court and the Delhi High Court and affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The Court explained that Order XII Rule 6 CPC provides broad discretion to courts to dismiss suits based on the plaintiff's own admissions that undermine the claim, even without a formal application.