Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Thangam and Anr. v. Navamani Ammal, has held that the failure on the part of the defendant to give a specific para-wise reply in the written statement would make the allegations made in the plaint as admitted against the defendant.

What was the Background of Thangam and Anr. v. Navamani Ammal Case?

• In this case, the testator of the Will, Palaniandi Udayar, was the husband of appellant no. 1 and father of appellant no. 2.
• The Will was executed in favour of Navamani Amma (Plaintiff), who as per the narration in the Will is said to be daughter of the brother of the testator.
• The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction before the Trial Court against the appellant/defendant.
• A written statement filed by the appellants/defendant, made no specific denial to the claim made by the respondent/plaintiff and neither parawise reply was given by the appellants/defendant to the allegations levied in the plaint.
• The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.
• In appeal by the appellants, judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed by the First Appellate Court.
• In the 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.
• Thereafter, the appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench Comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal observed that Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 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. The general rule is that the facts admitted are not required to be proved.
• It was further held that the written statement must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint and when a defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance.
  • If his denial of a fact is not specific but evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary.
• It was also held that Rule 5 of Order VIII 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 are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Written Statement:

• A written statement ordinarily means a reply to the plaint filed by the plaintiff. It is the pleading of the defendant.
• Order VIII of CPC contains provisions in relation to the written statement.

Rule 3 of Order VIII of CPC:

• This rule deals with the denial to be specific.
• It states that it shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages.

Rule 5 of Order VIII of CPC:

• This rule deals with specific denial. It states that -

(1) Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.

Provided further that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied in the manner provided under Rule 3A of this Order, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person with disability.

(2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved.

(3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader.

(4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.