The Supreme Court criticized the practice of submitting written statements that fail to provide paragraph-wise responses to the plaint.
According to the Court, this approach will facilitate a better understanding of the arguments presented by the parties, rather than necessitating the court to extract details from various parts of the plaint and the written statement.
In a case where an appeal arising from a civil suit was dismissed, the bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) explicitly mandate specific admissions and denials of the allegations in the plaint. They highlighted:
A generic or ambiguous denial is considered insufficient. The proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC stipulates that even admitted facts may not be automatically accepted, but at the court’s discretion, they may still need to be proven. This stands as an exception to the general rule, which states that admitted facts do not require further proof.
The provisions outlined in Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) necessitate specific admissions and denials of the allegations stated in the plaint. This requirement implies addressing the allegations paragraph by paragraph. Without this, the respondent may selectively pick lines from different paragraphs in the written statement to refute the allegations in the plaint, leading to confusion.
If the defendant wishes to raise any preliminary objections, they should do so in a separate section of paragraphs. This allows the plaintiff to respond accordingly in the replication/rejoinder, if necessary. Additional pleadings can also be incorporated in the written statement as needed. Clearly stating these facts in distinct paragraphs always provides the plaintiff with an opportunity to respond, aiding the court in understanding the pleadings of both parties without having to sift through multiple sections of the plaint and written statement.
In a particular case, the testator had left a piece of land to the daughter of his brother, prompting his widow and minor daughter to file a lawsuit seeking declaration and injunction against this provision.
The Court’s examination focused on determining whether the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, given that the testator had omitted to mention his widow and minor daughter in the will and had instead bequeathed part of his property to his brother’s daughter.
Upon investigation, the Court found no evidence to support claims of the testator’s poor health or inability to make sound decisions at the time of drafting the will. Consequently, the Court dismissed suspicions surrounding the will’s validity based on the testator’s alleged ill-health.
Initially, the trial court deemed the will genuine, but the First Appellate Court overturned this decision on appeal. Upon further review, the Madras High Court reinstated the trial court’s ruling, reversing the First Appellate Court’s judgment.
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was to ascertain the authenticity of a will executed by the testator in favor of his brother’s daughter.
The Court noted that the testator had demonstrated awareness of his widow and minor daughter’s welfare by ensuring they were adequately provided for in the will.
Additionally, it was observed that the expenses for the testator’s funeral were covered by the husband of the brother’s daughter, who also tended to the testator’s land. In contrast, the widow and her daughter did not actively manage the property bequeathed to them.
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.