A Written Statement Must Necessarily Deal With The Allegations In The Plaint Paragraph Wise – Civil Law

INTRODUCTION:

The Apex Court in a recent decision in
Thangam and Another vs Navami
Ammal¹, inter alia observed that Order
VIII Rule 3 and Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, required
specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. The
allegations in the plaint would have to be dealt
para-wise.

FACTS:

One Mr. Palaniandi Udyar (“Testator“)
held about 8 acres of land and three houses. By way of a registered
Will dated 9th October, 1984, (“Will“)
the Testator bequeathed approximately 3.5 Acres of land in favour
of the Respondent (the Plaintiff in the Suit) who was the daughter
of the Testator’s brother, stating therein that she was like
his daughter.

The Testator was the husband of Appellant no. 1 (the Defendant
No. 1 in the Suit), Thangam and father of Appellant no. 2 (the
Defendant No. 2 in the Suit), Laila.

A suit filed by the Respondent (the Plaintiff therein) for
declaration and injunction was decreed by the Trial Court, holding
the Will to be genuine. In an appeal filed by the Appellants, the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed by the First
Appellate Court. In second appeal preferred by the Respondent, the
judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was set aside and
the judgement of the Trial Court was restored by the Madras High
Court.

Being aggrieved with the impugned order of the Madras High
Court, the Appellants preferred the present appeal challenging the
genuineness of the Will.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION:

The main issue for consideration before the Apex Court was as
follows:

Whether the Will in question was surrounded by suspicious
circumstances?

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

It was submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the execution
of Will was surrounded by various suspicious circumstances and
deserved to be discarded. The finding of facts recorded by the
First Appellate Court was erroneously reversed by the Madras High
Court without the same being perverse.

It was further submitted that there were discrepancies in the
statements of the attesting witnesses to the Will. The health of
the Testator was not good and he was not in a position to
understand and comprehend the contents of the Will. There were
differences in the thumb impressions of the testator on the Will
and on the register in the office of the Sub-Registrar.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the execution
of Will by a person in favour of any other relative always would
mean that the Testator wished to take away some property from the
normal course of inheritance.

The entire property owned by the Testator was not given to the
Respondent by way of Will, rather it was only a part thereof.

It was further submitted that there was no specific denial to
the claim made by the Respondent in the plaint, by the Appellants
in the written statement filed by them. There was no para-wise
reply given in the written statement. In the absence thereof, the
allegations in the plaint were deemed to be admitted.

JUDGMENT:

Upon considering the evidence on record of the witnesses, the
Apex Court observed that the Will could not be held to be
suspicious on the ground of the alleged ill-health of the Testator
at the time of the execution of the Will and that at the time of
execution of the Will, the Testator was fully conscious of the
welfare of his widow and minor daughter as sufficient property was
left for them.

The Apex Court observed that no error had been committed by the
Madras High Court in holding that the Will was not surrounded by
the suspicious circumstances. The Testator was conscious of the
fact that he had a wife and a minor child whose interest had been
taken care of by leaving part of the property for them.

Thereafter, the Apex Court observed in respect of the manner in
which the pleadings were filed before the Trial Court as follows
“A perusal of the plaint filed by the respondent shows
that it contains ten paragraphs besides the prayer. In the written
statement filed by the appellants, no specific para-wise reply was
given. It was the own story of the respondent containing fifteen
paragraphs besides the prayer in para 16.“

The Apex Court observed that in the absence of paragraph wise
reply to the plaint, it would become a roving inquiry for a Court
to find out in which line of the written statement a paragraph in
the plaint was either admitted or denied. Further, there was no
specific admission or denial to the allegations in different
paragraphs of the plaint.

The Apex Court observed that Order VIII Rule 3 and Rule 5 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides for specific admission and
denial of pleadings in the plaint. A general or evasive denial
would not be treated as sufficient. The Apex Court further observed
that proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908, provided that even admitted facts may not be treated to be
admitted and a Court may require such admitted facts to be proved.
This was an exception to the general rule that facts which were
admitted were not required to be proved.

The Apex Court relied upon its earlier decisions in
Badat and Co. Bombay vs. East India Trading
Co.² and in Lohia Properties
(P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam Vs. Atmaram
Kumar³ in support of its observations.

The Apex Court on not finding any merit in the appeal, dismissed
the appeal.

Footnotes

1. Civil Appeal No. 8935 of 2011

2. AIR 1964 SC 538

3. (1993) 4 SCC 6

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration from India