ORDER : W.P.No.16288/2014 is filed by the plaintiff and W.P.No.33593/2014 is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1165/2009 against the common order passed by the Trial Court dated 11.02.2014 passed on I.A.No.6 and 7 on the file of the XLIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting I.A.No.6 filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and allowing I.A.No.7 filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.16288/2014 is the plaintiff in the suit filed for partition between plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 in respect of entire schedule ‘A’ property by metes and bounds and to deliver 1/4th share which is legitimate share and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or otherwise encumbering schedule ‘A’ property in favour of any person and to conduct enquiry into the past and future mesne profits as contemplated under Order XX Rule 12 and 18 of Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The substance of the plaint is that the plaintiff and defendants have purchased schedule ‘A’ property jointly under registered sale deed dated 24.08.1972. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 created tenancy over a portion of schedule ‘A’ property by leasing out the same to the fourth respondent on monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- whIch is described as schedule ‘B’ property, AND even without consent and necessary authorization from plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 started using the entire schedule ‘A’ property as well as rents derived there from even without giving accounts for the same, etc. Therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for the relief sought for. 4. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement, admitted that the suit schedule property was purchased by plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3, jointly. It is contended that all the parties are entitled to 1/4th share in the said property and further contended that the averment made in paragraph 3 of the plaint that after the death of father of defendants 1 and 2 the plaintiff has been requesting for partition of the entire schedule ‘A’ property and put him in possession of his 1/4th legitimate share in the schedule ‘A’ property for which the defendants 1 to 3 have been postponing and avoiding the plaintiff is false. 5. 5. It is further contended that schedule ‘A’ property was purchased by father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 along with defendant No.3 and the plaintiff, each having 1/4th share in the said property. After the death of the fathers of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the said defendants took initiative to get the katha transferred in the name of all the four owners and accordingly spent all the money in getting the same done. They are paying the taxes in respect of schedule ‘A’ property. The very fact that they got a joint katha done goes to establish the good intentions on the part of the defendants 1 to 3. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have no source of income. The plaintiff has other immoveable properties and lands from which he gets income. Therefore, defendants decided to carry out some repair work and rent the schedule ‘A’ property so as to fetch income for all the owners. Hence a meeting was called in which the plaintiff was present wherein the defendant Nos.1 and 2 expressed their good intentions and requested the plaintiff to contribute for carrying out the interior work. The plaintiff refused to make any financial contribution and informed the defendant Nos.1 and 2 that they can do what they want in one half of the schedule ‘A’ property having orally partitioned the property and that he along with third defendant would do some business in the other half of the schedule ‘A’ property. Accordingly, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 spent huge amount of money in getting the schedule ‘B’ property renovated and have accordingly rented out the same to the fourth defendant. The same is done with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff now having realized his mistake in not contributing, does not want the defendants to enjoy the income from their share of the property. 6. It is further contended that the schedule ‘A’ property measures 21 ½ feet x 16 ½ feet, situated in a congested area with constructions on all three sides without any open space. It is not practically feasible for the property to be divided into four equal shares. 6. It is further contended that the schedule ‘A’ property measures 21 ½ feet x 16 ½ feet, situated in a congested area with constructions on all three sides without any open space. It is not practically feasible for the property to be divided into four equal shares. As the plaintiff was not co-operating in developing the property, the defendants gave the option to the plaintiff either to sell his ¼ share to the defendants 1 to 3 or to buy their ¾ share of the schedule ‘A’ property, etc., and sought for dismissal of the suit. The third defendant also filed written statement and took the same contentions as taken by defendants 1 and 2. Defendant No.4 filed written statement who is tenant under defendant Nos.1 to 3. 7. During pendency of the said suit, plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to direct defendant No.4 to deposit the rents as accrued or that have been accrued and not paid the rent to defendant Nos.1 to 3 in respect of ‘B’ schedule property. The said application was resisted by the defendants. The Trial Court, considering the application and objections, by order dated 04.12.2009, allowed the application and directed the fourth defendant/tenant to deposit 1/4th share in the rent amount which he should pay to the defendants 1 to 3 in the Court till disposal of the suit or till he is vacates the suit property. The said order has reached finality. 8. Thereafter, plaintiff filed I.A.No.6 under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to draw up a partial decree of partition to the extent of 1/4th share in the schedule ‘A’ property, based on the facts admitted by the defendants. The said application was resisted by defendants by filing objections. The plaintiff also filed an application I.A.No.7 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to direct the fourth defendant to deposit the rents that accrue or that have accrued and not paid to the defendants 1 to 3 in respect of schedule ‘B’ property before the Court till disposal of the suit. The said application was also resisted by the defendants by filing objections. 9. The said application was also resisted by the defendants by filing objections. 9. The Trial Court, considering the applications and objections, by the impugned common Order dated 11th February 2014 rejected I.A.No.6 and allowed I.A.No.7 holding that the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the deposited amount in this case. Hence, plaintiff has filed W.P.No.16288/2014 challenging the rejection of I.A.No. 6 and defendants have filed W.P.No.33593/2014 questioning the allowing of I.A.No.7. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 11. Sri B.S. Satyanand, learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff in W.P. No.16288/2014 and learned counsel for the respondent in W.P. No.33593/2014 contends with vehemence that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that the impugned order is not a speaking order. The learned Judge failed to consider the fact that admission made in respect of share of the plaintiff is concerned, the same is unequivocal and unambiguous. So far as the alleged renovation expenses and the alleged amount spent by the defendants towards the property taxes, the same need not be gone into at the time of drawing up the preliminary decree for concluding the share of the plaintiff. These questions could be gone into at the time of drawing up Final Decree Proceedings. Who has spent what amount has to be gone into at the time of Final Decree Proceedings and not at the time of drawing up the preliminary decree. He would further contend that spending monies for maintenance of the schedule property has nothing to do in so far as fixation of the shares of the parties in the suit and granting the relief of partition and separate possession. Admittedly the defendants have not disputed the said joint purchase and joint possession. Therefore the trial Court ought to have allowed the application – I.A. No.6 filed under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure. He also contended that the order passed by the trial Court allowing I.A. No.7 is just and proper and the petitioners - defendants in W.P. No.33593/2014 are not entitled to any relief. Therefore he sought to allow W.P. No.16288/2014 filed by the plaintiff and dismiss W.P. No.33593/2014 filed by the defendants. 12. He also contended that the order passed by the trial Court allowing I.A. No.7 is just and proper and the petitioners - defendants in W.P. No.33593/2014 are not entitled to any relief. Therefore he sought to allow W.P. No.16288/2014 filed by the plaintiff and dismiss W.P. No.33593/2014 filed by the defendants. 12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments: 1. JANARDHAN JOG vs. SRIKRISHNA reported in ILR 1989 KAR. 1895 2. KRISHNABAI vs. KALAWATI reported in 1977(2) Kar.LJ 4 . 13. Per contra, Smt. Bhanu Ravinder, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – defendant Nos.1 to 3 in W.P. No.16288/2014 and learned counsel for the petitioners – defendant Nos.1 and 2 in W.P. No.33593/2014 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the trial Court on I.A. No.6 rejecting the application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure and contended that the defendants have taken the specific contention with regard to repair/renovation expenses and amount spent by them towards property taxes and the same will have to be decided during the course of trial. Therefore the partial decree on the alleged admissions of the defendants cannot be granted. He would further contend that the admission should be without waiting for determination of any of the questions between the parties and only under such circumstances, the decree can be granted. The alleged admissions and the defence taken are interlinked and hence matter has to be adjudicated on merits and therefore he sought to dismiss the writ petition filed by the plaintiff. 14. Smt. Bhanu Ravinder would further contend that earlier an application was filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the 4th defendant to deposit the rents that accrue or that have accrued and not paid to defendant Nos.1 to 3, in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property, before the Court till disposal of the suit. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court on 4.12.2009 directing the 4th defendant to deposit one-fourth share in the rent amount which he should pay to the defendant Nos.1 to 3, in Court till disposal of the suit or till he vacates the suit schedule property. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court on 4.12.2009 directing the 4th defendant to deposit one-fourth share in the rent amount which he should pay to the defendant Nos.1 to 3, in Court till disposal of the suit or till he vacates the suit schedule property. The trial Court has observed in the order dated 4.12.2009 that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount deposited in Court only after disposal of the suit, subject to the order that may be passed in the suit on the ground that the defendants have taken the contention that there was oral partition and the property in which the defendant No.4 is a tenant has fallen to their share. The said order passed by the trial Court has reached finality. Subsequent application – I.A. No.7 filed for the similar relief is not maintainable and the trial Court ought not to have allowed I.A. No.7 and therefore he sought to allow the writ petition filed by the defendants. 15. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are: (i) Whether the petitioner - plaintiff in W.P. No.16288/2014 has made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A. NO.6 filed under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section-151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to draw up partial decree of partition ? (ii) Whether the petitioners - defendants in W.P. No.33593/2014 have made a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing I.A. No.7 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the deposited amount, in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 16. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record carefully. 17. These two writ petitions arising out of the common order dated 11.2.2014 passed by the trial Court in O.S. No.1165/2009 rejecting I.A. No.6 to draw up partial decree exercising the powers under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and allowing I.A. NO.7 filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the deposited amount. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition alleging the plaintiff and defendants jointly purchased the ‘A’ schedule property and they are in joint possession and he is entitled to one-fourth share. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff purchased one-fourth share of the 3rd defendant and therefore he is entitled to half share in the entire property. According to the plaintiff, there are admissions in the written statement at paragraphs 2 and 8 that the defendants have not disputed the entitlement of one-fourth share to the plaintiff. 18. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the common written statement and the defendant Nos.3 and 4 have filed separate written statements. The defendants admitted the joint purchase of the ‘A’ schedule property and also admitted that the property is in joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants also admitted that defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the plaintiff have one-fourth share each in the said property. The defendants’ specific allegation in the written statement is that after the death of the father of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the defendants Nos.1 and 2 took the initiative to get the khatha transferred in the names of plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 to 3 and they have spent all the money in getting the same. The defendants have been paying taxes in respect of the ‘A’ schedule property. The fact that they got a joint khatha done shows the good intention of the defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is also stated in the written statement that when they requested the plaintiff to contribute the amount for the repair/renovation work, the plaintiff refused to make any financial contribution and informed the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that they can do what they want in respect of half of the ‘A’ schedule property having orally partitioned the property. In respect of renovation of the ‘A’ schedule property and getting the rent from ‘B’ schedule property, the same was done with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. Now the plaintiff having realized his mistake in not contributing, does not want the defendants to enjoy the income from their share of the property. In respect of renovation of the ‘A’ schedule property and getting the rent from ‘B’ schedule property, the same was done with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. Now the plaintiff having realized his mistake in not contributing, does not want the defendants to enjoy the income from their share of the property. In the written statement, it is the specific case of the defendants that there was oral partition and the plaintiff has no objection to renovate ‘B’ schedule property i.e., half share of the defendants 1 and 2. Therefore defendants admitting share of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 to one-fourth each is interlinked with the plaintiff purchasing one-fourth share of the 3rd defendant during the pendency of the suit. Therefore the alleged admissions made at paragraphs 1 and 8 are not absolute admissions. 19. A plain reading of the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly depicts that where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading 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 admission. Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced. 20. The provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly indicates the admission made by the defendants has to be without waiting for determination of any other questions between the parties. Admittedly in the present case, based on the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed five issues. The 1st issue is whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property and the 2nd issue is whether plaintiff is entitled for the accounts and mesne profits as sought for and the 3rd issue is whether the defendant proves that already there is oral partition. If the defendant able to prove the issue No.3 that there was oral partition, then the very suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. If the defendant able to prove the issue No.3 that there was oral partition, then the very suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. If ultimately the plaintiff is able to prove his share, he is entitled to share in view of the specific issue raised. The provisions of Order XII Rule 6 is not applicable in the present case since the issue and alleged admissions are interlinked. 21. If ultimately based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced by the parties, the defendants are able to prove that already there was an oral partition, then the question of granting 1/4th share to the plaintiff or subsequent purchase of one-fourth share by the plaintiff from the defendant No.3 would be a matter to be adjudicated. The very maintainability of the suit itself is questioned. Therefore in the absence of absolute admission and in presence of Issue NO.3, the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable at this stage. The trial Court considering the entire material on record rightly rejected I.A. No.6 holding that though the defendants have admitted the share of the plaintiff, regarding the renovation expenses and the amount spent by them towards the property taxes will have to be decided during the course of the trial and as such the partial decree on the admission of defendants cannot be passed at this stage. The same is in accordance with law and the plaintiff has not made out any case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court on I.A. No.6 especially in view of Issue No.3 framed based on the pleadings, in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 22. In so far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in the case of Janardhan Jog vs. Srikrishna reported in ILR 1989 KAR 1895, in that case also this Court at paragraph-9 held that an admission contemplated by Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has to be an absolute admission, capable of being worked out by itself. The other questions to be determined in the suit, on decree being made under Order XII Rule 6, should be such independent questions, relief’s granted on which should be capable of being granted without affecting the former decree (i.e, the one passed on the basis of admission). If the admitted fact cannot independently stand, and the ultimate relief or relief’s to be granted in the suit is interlinked with those facts, then, it will not be a proper exercise of the discretion, to make a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said judgment is exactly on the point and support the defendants in the present case. In view of Issue No.3 and the Issue interlinked with the questions to be determined after evidence, the said Judgment is of no assistance to the case of the plaintiff. 23. In so far as the other judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Krishnabai vs. Kalavati cited supra, it was a suit for partition in the joint family and the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 24. For the reasons stated above, the Point No.1 raised in these writ petitions is held in the negative holding that the petitioner - plaintiff in W.P. No.16288/2014 has not made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A. No.6 filed under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to draw up partial decree of partition. 25. In view of the above, the petitioner - plaintiff has not made out any ground in W.P. No.16288/2014 to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting I.A. No.6 filed Order Under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.16288/2014 is dismissed. 26. In so far as W.P. No.33593/2014, the same is filed against the order dated 11.2.2014 on I.A. No.7 in O.S. No.1165/2009. I.A. No.7 is filed by the plaintiff to release the entire amount deposited by the 4th defendant before the trial Court, on the ground that he is suffering from serious ailments and requires amount for his medical treatment and he has no source of income. 27. I.A. No.7 is filed by the plaintiff to release the entire amount deposited by the 4th defendant before the trial Court, on the ground that he is suffering from serious ailments and requires amount for his medical treatment and he has no source of income. 27. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit, earlier the very plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a direction to the 4th defendant to deposit the rents that accrue or that have been accrued and not paid to defendants Nos.1 to 3 in respect of ‘B’ schedule property, before the Court pending disposal of the suit. The defendants have filed objections to the said application. The trial Court considering the application and the objections by the order dated 4.12.2009 allowed the said application and directed the 4th defendant to deposit one-fourth share in the rent amount which he should pay to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the Court, till disposal of the suit or till he is vacating the suit schedule property. In the said order, the trial Court has specifically recorded a finding that prima facie plaintiff has proved that he is one of the sharers in the suit schedule property. Under the circumstances, if the defendant No.4 is directed to deposit one-fourth share in the rent amount which is claimed by the plaintiff, in Court till disposal of the suit, no harm will be caused to the defendant Nos.1 to 3. But the plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount deposited in Court only after disposal of the suit, subject to the order that may be passed in the present suit on the ground the defendants have taken contention that there was a oral partition and the property in which defendant No.4 is a tenant is fallen to their share. The said order passed by the trial Court has reached finality as the plaintiff or the defendants have not challenged the said order. 28. The said order passed by the trial Court has reached finality as the plaintiff or the defendants have not challenged the said order. 28. In view of the earlier order dated 4.12.2009 passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount only after the disposal of the suit, subject to the other contentions to be decided with regard to the oral partition and the property in which the defendant No.4 is a tenant is fallen to the share of the defendants etc., The trial Court proceeded to allow the application – I.A. NO.7 to release the amount based on the affidavit filed by the plaintiff that he is suffering from serious ailments and that he requires amount for his medical treatment and that he has no source of income etc., When there is no order to release the amount in terms of the earlier order passed by the Court on 4.12.2009, the learned Judge ought not to have allowed I.A. No.7. The order passed by the trial Court on I.A. No.7 is not a speaking order. Absolutely no discussion is made with regard to entitlement when in the very suit filed by the plaintiff, there is a specific issue i.e, Issue No.3 as to whether the defendants prove that already there is oral partition. Therefore the trial Court ought not to have allowed I.A. No.7. Even otherwise, the two applications for similar relief would not be maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order passed by the trial Court on I.A. No.7 is contrary to the very order passed by the trial Court dated 4.12.2009 on the earlier application. Therefore the impugned order passed by the trial Court on I.A. No.7 cannot be sustained. 29. For the reasons stated above, the point No.2 raised in these writ petitions is held in the affirmative holding that the petitioners - defendants in W.P. No.33593/2014 have made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing I.A. No.7 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the deposited amount, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 30. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition filed by the petitioners – defendant Nos.1 and 2 in W.P No.33593/2014 is allowed. 30. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition filed by the petitioners – defendant Nos.1 and 2 in W.P No.33593/2014 is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.2.2014 passed by the trial Court on I.A. No.7 is hereby set aside. 31. Learned counsel for both the parties stated at the Bar that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has drawn a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only), which will be adjusted at the time of disposal of the suit. The said submissions are placed on record. 32. The suit came to be filed in the year 2009 and now we are in the year 2019. More than ten years elapsed. Because of the internal dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants, suit is not being proceeded properly. In view of the above, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit at the earliest and the learned counsel for the parties shall cooperate for early disposal of the suit. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.16288/2014 is dismissed and Writ Petition No.33593/2014 is allowed with the above observations.