In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of providing a para-wise reply to plaintiff claims. In the opinion of this Court, failure to do so could result in the allegations being deemed admitted against the defendant, as per Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the CPC.
The judgment noted the absence of specific admissions or denials by the defendant regarding the allegations in different paragraphs of the plaint, making it challenging for the Court to determine which lines are admitted or denied.
Brief Facts:
In this case, the Will in question was executed on 09.10.1984, favouring Navamani Amma, referred to as the plaintiff, who is described in the Will as the daughter of the testator's brother. The defendant in the original suit was the widow of the testator, later joined by his minor daughter, both of whom are now appellants before the court. Appellant no. 1 is identified as the testator's third wife, as his earlier two wives had passed away without bearing any children. The total land owned by the testator, as per the admitted case of Defendant No. 1, amounted to about 8 acres, alongside three houses. Through the Will, the testator bequeathed roughly 3.5 acres of land to the plaintiff, stating her to be akin to his daughter, given her relationship as the daughter of his brother. The estimated value of the suit property was approximately ₹16,000/-.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned judgment and decree of the High Court should be challenged, as the execution of the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, rightfully discarded by the First Appellate Court. They contended that the High Court erroneously reversed the findings of the First Appellate Court without justification, as the re-appreciation of facts to arrive at another possible conclusion falls outside the scope of second appeal considerations. They emphasized that no substantial question of law was involved in the second appeal.
Moreover, they highlighted discrepancies in the statements of the scribe and attesting witnesses to the Will, alongside the poor health of the testator, casting doubt on his ability to comprehend the Will's contents. Additionally, differences in the testator's thumb impressions on the Will and the register at the Sub-Registrar's office were noted. Despite the testator leaving behind a widow and a minor daughter, the Will made no provision for their interests, and the appellants were in possession of the suit property. Thus, the suit filed by the respondent was deemed misconceived.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent's counsel argued that a testator's decision to execute a Will in favour of a relative indicates a departure from the usual inheritance pattern. As the testator's caretaker during his illness, the respondent, akin to a daughter to him, received only a portion of his property through the Will. Following the testator's demise, she took possession of the suit property. The suit was filed after disturbances to her possession by the appellants, who did not support the testator during his illness or after his death. Further, it was argued that the absence of specific denials in the appellants' written statement led to the admission of the allegations in the plaint. Therefore, the High Court's intervention to rectify the purportedly flawed findings of the First Appellate Court was deemed justified.
Observations of the Court:
After reviewing the evidence, the court found no inconsistency among the statements of the Will-attesting witnesses and the scribe, indicating the testator's capability to make a Will. The court emphasized the necessity of a specific para-wise reply in the written statement to address each allegation of the plaint, as required by Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the CPC. In the opinion of this Court, failure to provide such a reply may result in the allegations being deemed admitted. The court endorsed its earlier judgment emphasizing the integrated code formed by Order VIII Rules 3 to 5, stating that denial of facts must be specific and substantive, or else the fact will be taken as admitted. Additionally, the court referred to previous judgments to clarify the criteria for admitting facts in pleadings when they are not specifically denied.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the present appeal and upheld the order passed by the High Court.
Case Title: Thangam and Another Versus Navamani Ammal
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 132 SC
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Ms. T.Archana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv.
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Pulkit Tare, Adv. Mr. D. Kumanan, Adv. Mr. Sandeepan Pathak, Adv. Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, AOR
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://www.thebluediamondgallery.com/wooden-tile/s/suicide.html
