NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved