Written Statement Should Have Para Wise Reply To Plaint; General Or Evasive Denial Not Sufficient: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of filing written statements which do not contain para-wise reply to the plaint.
The Court said that this will enable the Court to properly comprehend the pleadings of the parties instead of digging the facts from the various paragraphs of the plaint and the written statement.
The bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal , while it dismissed an appeal arising out of a civil suit, noted that Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC clearly provides for specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. It made the following observations:
- A general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient. Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC provides that even the admitted facts may not be treated to be admitted, still in its discretion the Court may require those facts to be proved. This is an exception to the general rule. General rule is that the facts admitted, are not required to be proved
- The requirement of Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC are specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. The same would necessarily mean dealing with the allegations in the plaint para-wise. In the absence thereof, the respondent can always try to read one line from one paragraph and another from different paragraph in the written statement to make out his case of denial of the allegations in the plaint resulting in utter confusion.
- In case, the defendant/respondent wishes to take any preliminary objections, the same can be taken in a separate set of paragraphs specifically so as to enable the plaintiff/petitioner to respond to the same in the replication/rejoinder, if need be. The additional pleadings can also be raised in the written statement, if required. These facts specifically stated in a set of paragraphs will always give an opportunity to the plaintiff/petitioner to respond to the same. This in turn will enable the Court to properly comprehend the pleadings of the parties instead of digging the facts from the various paragraphs of the plaint and the written statement
AOR K. K. Mani represented the appellants, while AOR Suvendu Suvasis Dash appeared for the respondent.
In this case, the testator had bequeathed a piece of land in favour of the daughter of his brother. The widow of the testator and their minor daughter had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the same.
The Court had to examine whether the will in question was surrounded by suspicious circumstances whereby the testator had not mentioned the names of his widow and minor daughter in the Will and had bequeathed a part of his property to the brother’s daughter.
The Court did not find that the health of the testator was not in “good senses” and that “he was unable to understand his welfare or take correct decisions”. Hence, the Court held that the Will cannot 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.
The trial court held that the Will was genuine. In appeal before the First Appellate Court, the decree of the Trial Court was reversed. In the second appeal, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was set aside and the Madras High Court restored the order of the trial court.
The issue under consideration before the Supreme Court was to determine the genuineness of a Will executed by the testator of the will in favour of the daughter of the brother of the testator.
The Court remarked that at the time of the 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 Court also stated the expenses for the last rites of the testator were borne by the husband of the brother’s daughter who was also taking care of the land of the testator. The widow and her daughter were not taking care of the property mutated in their favour.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Thangam & Anr v. Navamani Ammal (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 164)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR K. K. Mani; Advocates T.archana and Rajeev Gupta
Respondent: AOR Suvendu Suvasis Dash
