Yearly Archives: 2024

A factual question arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the matter of Thangam & Anr v. Navamani Ammal [Civil Appeal No. 8935 of 2011 decided on 04.03.2024],when the question that arose  for consideration was whether the will in question was surrounded by suspicious circumstances whereby the testator had not mentioned the names of his widow and daughter in the will and had bequeathed a part of his property to the daughter of his brother.  The appellants were the wife and the minor daughter. When the Court looked into and examined the evidence it was found that the witnessed from the prosecution and the defendant’s side have stated that the testator was suffering from cough but otherwise he was not in a condition when it can be said that he was no in good senses and that he was unable to understand his welfare and take correct decision. Hence, the Will could not held to be suspicious on the ground of alleged ill-health of the testator at time of execution of will. Similarly, based on the other evidence, the Court concluded that the there was no discrepancy in the will. Additionally, the Court also observed that the case of appellants was weak since in the written statements filed by the Appellants, there was no specific denial to the claims made by the plaintiff. No para-wise reply was given.  On this aspect, the Court observed that Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC clearly provides for specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint.  The Court further charted the essentials of provision in three points – (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) 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.