LexTHANGAM AND ANOTHER versus NAVAMANI AMMAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 146 : 2024 INSC 164 Thangam and Another v. Navamani Ammal (Civil Appeal No. 8935 of 2011) 04 March 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Genuineness of the Will, a registered document, executed by testator (husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellant no.2) in favour of respondent-plaintiff (daughter of his brother). Headnotes Will – Genuineness of – When not surrounded by suspicious circumstances – By way of Will, the testator bequeathed a part of his property in favour of the respondent-daughter of his brother – Names of his widow-appellant no.1 and minor daughter- appellant no.2 were not mentioned in the Will – Suit filed by the respondent for declaration and injunction was decreed, Will was held to be genuine by the Trial Court – Decree of the Trial Court reversed by First Appellate Court – High Court restored the decree of the Trial Court – Correctness: Held: From the evidence of the witnesses with reference to the health of the testator, the Will cannot be held to be suspicious on the ground of the alleged ill-health of the testator at the time of the its execution – It is the admitted case of the appellants that the testator left behind about 8 acres of land and three houses – What was bequeathed to the respondent was merely a part of testator’s entire property i.e. land measuring approximately 3.5 Acres – Meaning thereby the balance property of the testator was in possession of widow and daughter – This is how the interest of the natural legal heirs was taken care of – The reason to bequeath a part of the property in favour of the respondent is also evident from the material available on record – No error committed by the High Court in holding that the Will was not surrounded by the suspicious circumstances as the scribe and one of the witnesses were unison – The testator was conscious of the fact that he had [2024] 3 S.C.R. 147 Thangam and Another v. Navamani Ammal a wife and a minor child whose interest had been taken care of by leaving part of the property for them – No merit in the appeal. [Paras 9.5, 12, 13 and 16] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 – Specific admission and denial of the pleadings – Need of – Emphasised – Plaint filed by the respondent contained ten paragraphs besides the prayer – In the written statement filed by the appellants, there was no specific denial to the claim made by the respondent, no para-wise reply was given – In absence thereof, the allegations in the plaint were deemed to be admitted: Held: 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 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 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 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. [Paras 15-15.2] Case Law Cited Badat and Co. Bombay Vs. East India Trading Co., [1964] 4 SCR 19 : AIR 1964 SC 538; Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam Vs. Atmaram Kumar, (1993) 4 SCC 6 – relied on. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Will; Genuineness; Not surrounded by suspicious circumstances; Interest of the natural legal heirs taken care of; Pleadings; Admission and denial of the pleadings. 148 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.8935 of 2011 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.04.2007 of the High Court of Madras in SA No.1344 of 1996 Appearances for Parties K. K. Mani, Ms. T. Archana, Rajeev Gupta, Advs. for the Appellants. Pulkit Tare, D. Kumanan, Sandeepan Pathak, Suvendu Suvasis Dash, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.