{"id":217074,"date":"2019-07-19T16:30:33","date_gmt":"2019-07-19T11:00:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=217074"},"modified":"2019-07-24T16:56:26","modified_gmt":"2019-07-24T11:26:26","slug":"ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/","title":{"rendered":"Ori HC | Admission of only some facts would not qualify defendants the right to begin first under Or. 18 R. 1 CPC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Orissa High Court: <\/strong>Dr A.K. Rath, J. allowed the present petition and quashed an order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) directing the plaintiffs to begin first due to the defendants only admitting some of the facts alleged.<\/p>\n

In the present case, the possession of the suit property is in question. The suit property was initially granted in a lease, wherein the lessee failed to pay the land revenue. Thereafter, the property was put to auction. The winner in the auction sale sold the property to one Prasanna Kumari Dei. The property was thereafter gifted to Golak Bihari Kanungo, which he let out to plaintiff’s 1 and 2 and the father of other plaintiffs on the monthly rent.\u00a0 The plaintiffs constructed shop rooms and were running a business. An application for settlement of land was filed before the Tahasildar, Puri by one Sui Bai, stating that she had purchased the land in the Execution Case No. 206 of 1965. The Tahasildar cancelled the lease granted in favour of Sui Bai and had sent the case records to the Collector for the resumption of suit plot. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 had filled a written statement, stating their mother being the owner of the suit property on strength of a mortgage deed. The right, title, interest and possession of their mother over the property was declared by the present High Court through an Execution Case. Thereafter, the mother had executed two gift deeds in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs had filed an application under Order 18 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1983 (\u2018CPC\u2019) for a direction to the defendants to begin first, which was allowed by the learned trial court.<\/p>\n

The Senior Advocate representing the petitioners, Ganeswar Rath assisted by B.K. Nayak, Advocate submitted that the defendants did not admit the facts alleged in the plaint and by a laconic order, the trial court had allowed the application.<\/p>\n

The Counsel representing the opposite parties, Manas Ranjan Panda, contended that the plaint unerringly states that the defendants had admitted that the suit property is the khasmahal<\/em> land and that Golak Bihari Kanungo was in possession of the land as well. It was also mentioned in the plaint that the defendants admitted the fact of possession being with the mother by Execution Case No. 206 of 1965 and thus, the defendants should begin first.<\/p>\n

The High Court, perused Order 18 Rule 1 CPC and relied on the judgment, Mirza Niamat Baig v. Sk. Abdul Sayeed<\/em>, 2008 (I) OLR 566 which held that a person who sets the law in motion and seeks a relief before the Court, must necessarily be in a position to prove his case and get the relief stated by the law. The Court had also held that \u201cwhere a defendant admits only some of the facts alleged by the plaintiff, there the plaintiff should begin.\u201d<\/em> The present High Court perused the documents placed on record and held that the defendants had only admitted some of the facts in the plaint. Thus, placing reliance on the above decision, the plaintiffs shall begin their case first.[Mohanlal Agarwal v. Raghunath Nayak, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 228<\/b><\/a>, decided on 10-07-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Orissa High Court: Dr A.K. Rath, J. allowed the present petition and quashed an order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[32749,32748],"class_list":["post-217074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-order-18-rule-1-cpc","tag-right-to-begin"],"yoast_head":"\nOri HC | Admission of only some facts would not qualify defendants the right to begin first under Or. 18 R. 1 CPC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ori HC | Admission of only some facts would not qualify defendants the right to begin first under Or. 18 R. 1 CPC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Orissa High Court: Dr A.K. Rath, J. allowed the present petition and quashed an order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-07-19T11:00:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-07-24T11:26:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/orissa-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/\",\"name\":\"Ori HC | Admission of only some facts would not qualify defendants the right to begin first under Or. 18 R. 1 CPC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-07-19T11:00:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-07-24T11:26:26+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ori HC | Admission of only some facts would not qualify defendants the right to begin first under Or. 18 R. 1 CPC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ori HC | Admission of only some facts would not qualify defendants the right to begin first under Or. 18 R. 1 CPC | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ori HC | Admission of only some facts would not qualify defendants the right to begin first under Or. 18 R. 1 CPC","og_description":"Orissa High Court: Dr A.K. Rath, J. allowed the present petition and quashed an order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-07-19T11:00:33+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-07-24T11:26:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/orissa-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/","name":"Ori HC | Admission of only some facts would not qualify defendants the right to begin first under Or. 18 R. 1 CPC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-07-19T11:00:33+00:00","dateModified":"2019-07-24T11:26:26+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/19\/ori-hc-admission-of-only-some-facts-would-not-qualify-defendants-the-right-to-begin-first-under-or-18-r-1-cpc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ori HC | Admission of only some facts would not qualify defendants the right to begin first under Or. 18 R. 1 CPC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":259057,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-court-justified-in-allowing-application-under-or-12-r-6-cpc-for-absence-of-material-pleadings\/","url_meta":{"origin":217074,"position":0},"title":"Judgment on Admissions | Is Court justified in allowing application under Or. 12 R. 6 CPC for absence of material pleadings, presence of moonshine defence in WS? Del HC discusses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 24, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., held that, \u201cMere fact that the boundary walls had been built by the defendants cannot be termed as a hostile act against the true owner as the walls had been constructed to define the properties of the defendants after the family partition took place.\u201d\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":276423,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/20\/counter-claim-under-order-8-rule-6-cpc-can-only-be-filed-against-plaintiff-supreme-court-property-dispute-defendant-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":217074,"position":1},"title":"Explained| Can an independent counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC having nothing to do with the plaintiffs be allowed?\u00a0","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"August 20, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia*, JJ has held that a counter claim under Order VIII, Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) can be set up only \u201cagainst the claim of the plaintiffs\u201d. The Court was dealing with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Can-an-independent-counter-claim-under-Order-VIII-Rule-6A-CPC-having-nothing-to-do-with-the-plaintiffs-be-allowed-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Can-an-independent-counter-claim-under-Order-VIII-Rule-6A-CPC-having-nothing-to-do-with-the-plaintiffs-be-allowed-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Can-an-independent-counter-claim-under-Order-VIII-Rule-6A-CPC-having-nothing-to-do-with-the-plaintiffs-be-allowed-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Can-an-independent-counter-claim-under-Order-VIII-Rule-6A-CPC-having-nothing-to-do-with-the-plaintiffs-be-allowed-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Can-an-independent-counter-claim-under-Order-VIII-Rule-6A-CPC-having-nothing-to-do-with-the-plaintiffs-be-allowed-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":288287,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/31\/supreme-court-explains-order-6-rule-17-cpc-and-order-9-rule-9-cpc-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":217074,"position":2},"title":"Explained | Supreme Court explains the amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and maintainability of fresh suit as per Order IX Rule 9 of CPC","author":"Ridhi","date":"March 31, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court said that if the alternative plea introduced by plaintiff through an amendment is one which the defendant set up in his written statement, although inconsistent with the original plea, the Court is not precluded from allowing the amendment if it does not prejudice the defendant.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Order IX Rule 9 CPC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/tmp_dd1e5279-5403-4baf-834f-25764cec4d07.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/tmp_dd1e5279-5403-4baf-834f-25764cec4d07.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/tmp_dd1e5279-5403-4baf-834f-25764cec4d07.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/tmp_dd1e5279-5403-4baf-834f-25764cec4d07.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":344538,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/28\/city-civil-judge-citing-non-existing-cases-disturbing-probe-ordred-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":217074,"position":3},"title":"Karnataka HC terms the act of City Civil Judge citing non-existing cases to back decision as \u2018disturbing\u2019; Directs probe in the matter","author":"Sucheta","date":"March 28, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"While rejecting the defendants\u2019 application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, the Civil Judge cited 2 non-existent Supreme Court rulings to back his decision.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Karnataka High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":347314,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/07\/right-to-property-occupies-sacrosanct-position-dhc-orders-to-pay-rs1-76-crore-for-illegal-occupation-of-private-property\/","url_meta":{"origin":217074,"position":4},"title":"\u2018Right to property occupies sacrosanct position\u2019: Delhi HC orders Centre to pay Rs. 1.76 crore for illegal occupation of private property for two decades","author":"Arushi","date":"May 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe State, being a constitutional authority and repository of public trust, is duty-bound to protect, rather than transgress, the civil rights of its citizens, including the right to property. The powers of the State are not plenary or absolute but are circumscribed by constitutional and statutory limitations.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":354466,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/24\/del-hc-monthly-rent-payment-not-sale-consideration\/","url_meta":{"origin":217074,"position":5},"title":"Monthly rent payment cannot be accepted as sale consideration, without proper justification: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"July 24, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court presumed that the absence of a reason for not disclosing the higher amount in the Agreement to Sell (\u2018ATS\u2019), and the lack of explanation for payment of sale consideration disguised as rent is likely to evade taxes. This suppression made the 1982 ATS illegal, and against the public\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"rent payment not sale consideration","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/rent-payment-not-sale-consideration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/rent-payment-not-sale-consideration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/rent-payment-not-sale-consideration.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/rent-payment-not-sale-consideration.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217074","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=217074"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217074\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}