13 of the complaint that (i) The residential flat is owned by the trust; (ii) The trust has instituted proceedings for eviction against the Appellant; and (iii) The flat does not belong to the Appellant, but to the trustees. It was on the basis of these averments that the Appellant has sought to contend that since the title to the flat does not vest in him, he could not have entered into any transaction in respect of the flat in favour of the accused, Keshavrao Bhosale. This admission of the Appellant in the criminal complaint which he has filed was sufficient to enable the Learned Trial Judge, in the suit instituted by the Respondents to pass a decree in terms of clauses (a) and (b). Prayer clause (a) seeks a declaration to the effect that the Appellant has no right, title or interest in the flat and his possession is as a trespasser while prayer clause (b) seeks a decree for possession. Once the Appellant has conceded to the title to the residential flat as inhering in the trusts, as he has in his unequivocal admission contained in the averments in the criminal complaint, the Learned Single Judge was, in our view, justified in proceeding on the basis of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decreeing the suit. In view of the admission on the part of the Appellant in respect of the title of the trustees to the residential flat, there would be no occasion to now require the trustees to establish their title by leading evidence as the Appellant contends or for that matter of leading evidence in regard to the interest of D.L. Shah in respect of the residential flat. The object and purpose of Order 12 Rule 6 is indeed to obviate the necessity of doing so where there is an admission of fact either in the pleadings or otherwise that would enable the Court to render judgment or to pass such an order as it deems fit without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties.
