Requirement of Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 of CPC are specific admission &denial of pleadings in the plaint; Specific para-wise reply to be given in written statement/counter affidavit: SC
Justices C. T. Ravikumar & Rajesh Bindal [04-03-2024]

Read Order: THANGAM AND ANOTHER v. NAVAMANI AMMAL [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8935 OF 2011]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, March 6, 2024: The Supreme Court has explained that in the absence of para-wise reply to the plaint, it becomes a roving inquiry for the Court to find out as to which line in some paragraph in the plaint is either admitted or denied in the written statement. The Top Court has highlighted the importance of Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC which provides for specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint.

The Division Bench of Justice C. T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal was considering the issue regarding genuineness of aregistered Will.

The facts of the case were such that the testator of the Will dated 09.10.1984, Palaniandi Udayar, was the husband of appellant no. 1 Thangam and father of appellant no. 2 Laila.The Will was executed in favour of Navamani Amma/Plaintiff, who as per the narration in the Will was said to be daughter of the brother of the testator.The defendant in the suit originally filed was widow of the testator, however, later on his minor daughter was also impleaded. Both of them were the appellants before the Top Court.

The appellant no. 1 is the third wife of the testator. The earlier two wives expired and were not having any child from the loins of the testator.As per the admitted case of the defendant no. 1/widow of the testator, the testator was having total land about 8 acres besides three houses.By way of Will, the testator had bequeathed approximately 3.5 Acres of land in favour of the plaintiff stating therein that she was like his daughter, being daughter of his brother. The value of the suit property was estimated to be about Rs16,000.

A suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and injunction was decreed by the Trial Court holding the Will to be genuine. In appeal by the appellants, the judgment of the Trial Court was reversed by the First Appellate Court. In second appeal, the Trial Court’s order was restored by the Madras High Court.

It was the case 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 High Court without the same being perverse. Re-appreciation of the facts merely to come to another possible conclusion did not fall within the scope of consideration of a matter in second appeal.

The respondents submitted 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. It was contended that the appellant no. 1 was living away from the testator. Even at the time of his death the appellants were not present as she came later on. Even the expenses for performing last rites of the testator were borne by the husband of the respondent. As per the respondents, there was no error in the judgment of the High Court.

After going through the evidence of the witnesses with reference to the health of the testator, the Bench didn’t find that he was not in good senses and was unable to understand his welfare or take correct decisions. Hence, the Will couldn’t 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.

Moreover, there was nothing on record to suggest that the appellants were taking care of the property left by the testator immediately after his death or that any steps were taken by them to get the same mutated in their favour. The Bench was of the view that no error had been committed by the High Court in holding that the Will was not surrounded by the suspicious circumstances as the scribe and one of the witnesses were unison. 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. Even in the written statement, the appellants stated that they were enjoying the suit properties and other properties left by the testator. This, according to the Bench, clearly showed that certain part of the property was left by the testator for his widow and minor daughter.

Lastly, the Bench also dealt with the manner in which the pleadings had been filed in the Trial Courts or may be in some cases in the High Courts. A perusal of the plaint filed by the respondent showed that it contained 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.

It was opined that in the absence of para-wise reply to the plaint, it becomes a roving inquiry for the Court to find out as to which line in some paragraph in the plaint is either admitted or denied in the written statement filed, as there is no specific admission or denial with reference to the allegation in different paras.

Referring to Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC which provides for specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint, the Bench held that a general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient. “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”, it added.

The Bench further explained that 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.

Reference was also made to Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam Vs. Atmaram Kumar [LQ/SC/1993/630]wherein it was opined that any allegation of fact must either be denied specifically or by a necessary implication or there should be at least a statement that the fact is not admitted. If the plea is not taken in that manner, then the allegation shall be taken to be admitted.

Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench said, “We have made the aforesaid observations as regularly this Court is faced with the situation where there are no specific para-wise reply given in the written statement/counter affidavit filed by the defendant(s)/respondent(s). In our opinion, if the aforesaid correction is made, it may streamline the working.”