Kerala High Court: E-Toilets to be Build for Flood Affected Tribal Families  ||  Amalgamation of Air Asia With Air India Express Approved by NCLT  ||  SC: Accused Refusing to Undergo Medical Examination Amounts to Non-Cooperation With Investigation  ||  Ker. HC: Power Under Section 216 of CrPC Can be Exercised by the Court at Any Time Before Judgement  ||  IIAC (Conduct of Micro and Small Enterprises Arbitration) Regulations, 2024 Issued by IIAC  ||  Mad. HC: State Bound to Take Care of Adults With Mental Health Illness and No Family Support  ||  Mad. HC: State Bound to Take Care of Adults With Mental Health Illness and No Family Support  ||  Ker HC: Min. of Animal Husbandry to Consider Objections to Ban on ‘Dangerous & Ferocious’ Dog Breeds  ||  Madras High Court: Important to Send Out Message That Courts Shouldn’t be Taken for Granted  ||  Insolvency Proceedings Initiated Against Himalayan Mineral Water by NCLT    

Thangam and Ors. Vs. Navamani Ammal - (Supreme Court) (04 Mar 2024)

Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied in the written statement shall be taken to be admitted by the Defendant

MANU/SC/0161/2024

Civil

The issue under consideration in the present appeal is regarding genuineness of the Will dated 9th October, 1984, which is a registered document, executed by Palaniandi Udyar in favour of Navamani Amma. 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, judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed by the First Appellate Court. In second appeal filed by the Respondent, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored by the High Court.

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.

Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) clearly provides for specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. A general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient. Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 of 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 of 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.

Rule 5 of CPC provides that, every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied in the written statement shall be taken to be admitted by the Defendant. What this Rule says is, 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. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : WRITTEN STATEMENT   SPECIFIC ADMISSION   ADMISSION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved