Supreme Court: Written Statement Must Have Para-Wise Reply To Plaint; Allegations Deemed To Be Admitted Unless Specifically Denied

 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.{Para 15}

15.1 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.

15.2 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. 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.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8935 OF 2011

THANGAM AND ANOTHER Vs NAVAMANI AMMAL 

Rajesh Bindal, J.

Dated: March 04, 2024.

Citation:  2024 INSC 164.

Print Page

Can the court rely on the presumption of official acts if there is a specific denial about the performance of a particular act?

We are aware of the provision of Section 114 of the Evidence Act which gives presumption for official acts performed in the course of the performance of official duties. However, it is to be noted that whenever there is a specific denial about the performance of a particular act, it becomes obligatory for the concerned officer to produce cogent materials before the Court to disclose and establish the performance of the act. The Section 114 of the Evidence Act will not come to the aid to the officer who fails to perform this obligation when the matter is under challenge before the Court. It is more so, when the conduct of the respondents is sufficient to raise doubt about the bona fide regarding such claim. It is pertinent to note that the respondents have not produced any material on record even to show that the letter dated 5-11-2001 was actually and factually sent to the addressee of the said letter and the same was received by the addressee.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

W.P. No. 4858 of 2005

Decided On: 10.07.2006

Prakash Vishwanath Khute and Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M.S. Khandeparkar and S.R. Dongaonkar, JJ.

Author: R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0821/2006,2006(6) ALLMR 245

Print Page

When it is not necessary to examine attesting witness to prove execution of gift deed?

Under the proviso to Section 68 the obligation to produce at least one attesting witness stands withdrawn if the execution of any such document, not being a will which is registered, is not specifically denied. Therefore, everything hinges on the recording of this fact of such denial. If there is no specific denial, the proviso comes into play but if there is denial, the proviso will not apply.

We think that specific denial of execution of gift is an unambiguous and categorical statement that the donor did not execute the document. It means not only that the denial must be in express terms but that it should be unqualified, manifest and explicit. It should be certain and definite denial of execution. What has to be specifically denied is the execution of the document. 

18. The question which elicited the above answer gives a clear understanding of the case of the Defendants as they understood their case. Defendants have no case that no document was executed by Anandan Nambiar. Their case is that the document is not valid because it had been executed under circumstances which would render the document invalid. There is no specific denial of the execution of the document. The Respondents can seek the aid of the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act. No defect in not calling an attesting witness to prove the document. We do not think that we can ignore Ext. A1 gift deed on the ground that no attesting witness has been called for, for proving the gift deed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7528 of 2019 

Decided On: 23.09.2019

Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel  Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai

Print Page

Supreme Court: it is not necessary to examine attesting witness to prove execution of gift deed if there is no specific denial

The question which elicited the above answer gives a clear understanding of the case of the Defendants as they understood their case. Defendants have no case that no document was executed by Anandan Nambiar. Their case is that the document is not valid because it had been executed under circumstances which would render the document invalid. There is no specific denial of the execution of the document. The Respondents can seek the aid of the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act. No defect in not calling an attesting witness to prove the document. We do not think that we can ignore Ext. A1 gift deed on the ground that no attesting witness has been called for, for proving the gift deed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7528 of 2019 

Decided On: 23.09.2019

Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel  Vs.  Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 SC 4822,2020(2) MHLJ 258

Print Page

Whether fact is deemed to be admitted if it is not specifically denied?

Moreover, in the present case, there is no specific denial to the averments made by the Respondent in the plaint that, the Respondent was always ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. This fact is taken note of by both the Courts below and it was therefore, held that in the absence of specific denial in the written statement about the fact pleaded in the plaint amounts to admission and admitted facts need not be proved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Second Appeal No. 66 and 67 of 2003

Decided On: 08.08.2018

Madhavrao Ramchandra More  Vs.  Rajendra Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Maryadeet and Ors.

Print Page

Whether a fact is deemed to be admitted if not denied specifically in written statement?

 It is settled law that denial for want of knowledge is no denial at all. The
execution of the sale deed was not specifically denied in the written statement. Once the
execution of the sale deed was not disputed it was not necessary to examine Buchamma
to prove it. The provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 5 require pleadings to be
answered specifically in written statement. This Court in Jahuri Sah & Ors. v. Dwarika
Prasad Jhunjhunwala AIR 1967 SC 109 has laid down that if a defendant has no
knowledge of a fact pleaded by the plaintiff is not tantamount to a denial of existence offact, not even an implied denial. 

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4816 OF 2016

Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) Th. Lrs.
V
Muddasani Sarojana

Print Page

Whether passing of consideration under sale deed can be challenged by third party?

 It is also settled law that passing of consideration under a sale deed cannot be
questioned by third party. Defendant no. 3 has not been able to establish her case that
she is an adopted daughter of the deceased Yashoda and thus, she being the third party,
could not have questioned the execution of the sale deed by Buchamma on the ground of

passing of consideration as rightly laid down by the High Court of M.P. in Pandit
Ramjilal Tiwari v. Vijai Kumar & Ors. 1970 MPLJ 50. The High Court of Patna has also
held that passing of consideration can be questioned by a party or his representative in
Mt. Akli v. Mt. Daho AIR 1928 Patna 44. Similar is the view of the High Court of
Nagpur in Maroti Bansi Teli (supra). Thus, the High Court has erred in law on this

ground also in dismissing the suit.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4816 OF 2016

Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) Th. Lrs.
V
Muddasani Sarojana
Citation:(2016) 12 SCC 288

Print Page

When it is not necessary to examine executant of sale deed to prove execution of sale deed?

 Coming to the question whether execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff has
been proved, the High Court has held that the sale deed has not been proved for want of
examination of Buchamma. The High Court has ignored the pleadings of the parties and
the evidence on the question of execution of sale deed which establishes that sale deed

had been executed by Buchamma in favour of the plaintiff. In the written statement
filed on behalf of the defendants, the sale deed was denied for want of knowledge. A
perusal of same indicates that the authority of Buchamma to execute the sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff was put into question. Defendant no. 3 Sarojana in her deposition
in court did not deny the fact that sale deed was executed by Buchamma in favour of the
plaintiff. She has stated that she was not aware whether Buchamma has executed anysale deed in favour of the plaintiff. She only asserted that she was the adopted daughter
of Yashoda.
15. It is settled law that denial for want of knowledge is no denial at all. The
execution of the sale deed was not specifically denied in the written statement. Once the
execution of the sale deed was not disputed it was not necessary to examine Buchamma
to prove it. The provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 5 require pleadings to be
answered specifically in written statement. This Court in Jahuri Sah & Ors. v. Dwarika
Prasad Jhunjhunwala AIR 1967 SC 109 has laid down that if a defendant has no
knowledge of a fact pleaded by the plaintiff is not tantamount to a denial of existence offact, not even an implied denial. Same decision has been followed by Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Dhanbai D/o Late Shri Cowash v. State of M.P. & Ors. 1978 MPLJ 717.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Samrathmal & Anr. v. Union of India, Ministry of
Railway & Ors. AIR 1959 MP 305 relying on P.L.N.K.L. Chettyar Firm v. Ko Lu Doke

AIR 1934 Rang 278 and Lakhmi Chand v. Ram Lal AIR 1931 All. 423, had also opined
that if the defendant did not know of a fact, denial of the knowledge of a particular fact

is not a denial of the fact and has not even the effect of putting the fact in issue.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4816 OF 2016

Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah V Muddasani Sarojana

Citation:(2016) 12 SCC 288

Print Page

Whether execution of mortgage deed can be proved without examining attesting witness?

We shall first deal with the proof of the certified copy of the deed of mortgage. So far as the mortgage deed is concerned, the plaintiff filed a certified copy and called upon the defendant to file the original. The defendant refused to do so. The plaintiff, therefore, proceeded to file the certified copy as secondary evidence under sub-clause (a) of section 65 of the Evidence Act. This was certainly permissible. The mortgage is a document required to be attested by two attestors undersection 59 of the Transfer of Property Act and in this case it is attested by two attestors. The mode of proof of documents required to be attested is contained in sections 68 to71 of the Evidence Act. Under section 68, if the execution of a document required to be attested is to be proved, it will be necessary to call an attesting witness, if alive and subject to the process of Court and is capable of giving evidence. But in case the document is registered

- then except in the case of a will - it is not necessary to call an attesting witness, unless the execution has been specifically denied by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. This is clear from section 68 of the Evidence Act. It reads as follows:

"Section 68: If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness atleast has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied."

In the present case, though it was stated in the written statement that there was no relationship between the parties as mortgagor and mortgagee, the defendant admitted in his additional pleas in the same written statement that the mortgage deed was executed but he contended that it was executed to circumvent the Rent Control legislation. In fact, in his evidence as DW2 the defendant admitted the execution of the mortgage. It must therefore be taken that there was no specific denial of execution. Hence it was not necessary for the plaintiff to call the attestor into the witness box, this not being a will. The plaintiff could therefore not be faulted for not examining any of the attestors. Hence the mortgage stood proved by the certified copy. The Courts below were right in accepting that the deed was proved. 

Supreme Court of India

Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs Sohan Lal (Dead)By Lrs on 29 November, 1999

Bench: M.Jagannadha Rao, M.B.Shah

Citation:AIR 2000 SC426  

Print Page

How to prove impotency of wife for annulment of marriage?

So far the allegation of impotency of appellant-wife and her inability to have physical and sexual relationship is concerned, this fact is specifically mentioned in petition/plaint but were not specifically denied in written-statement filed by opposite party/appellant. In her statement, opposite-party/appellant had vaguely end evasively denied the facts of petition/plaint on this point, but had nowhere specifically pleaded that she is physically and sexually fit and has been able to makes consummation of the marriage possible, or have sexual relationship with husband. Such non-specific denial technically amounts to admission on part of opposite party-defendant on these points. Rule-3 of Order VIII CPC provides it shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff. Under Rule-4 such evasive denial shall not be sufficient to be taken up as denial. On this ground alone, main allegation of alleged impotency and inability of appellant to have physical relationship should have been taken to be admitted by the lower court. Absence of specific denial of such facts should be treated as their non-denial and admission. Since there is no pleading of defendant-appellant that she was not impotent or was able to have physical relationship with her husband. There is no averment in her written statement that she had informed petitioner about her physical inability to consummate; therefore, in absence of such pleading her oral evidence could not be accepted on these points. 
Apart from it, the lower appellate court had considered those points also, which were ignored by trial court. The learned Additional District Judge had considered the facts that request of petitioner-husband for medico legal examination of defendant-wife could not be materialized because of non-cooperation of wife-appellant herself who had declined to undergo such examination. Respondent-husband had given other evidences, which were appreciated by the lower appellate court in light of other circumstances, and on the basis of which finding was given by first appellate court that appellant-wife was not able to have physical relationship with husband, and she is impotent. 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 239 of 2016 
Appellant :- Smt. Sulekha 
Respondent :- Ashok Kumar 

Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,.
 Dated: 14.03.2016 
Citation:AIR 2016(NOC)452 ALL

Print Page

When non examination of doctor is not fatal in hindu marriage petition proceeding?

Taking the first point first, it may be noted that the court below has based its judgment on medical report of J.P. Memorial Hospital by Dr. S. Khanjuja. He has reported that the defendant wife has no ovary and as such she cannot conceive. Her uterus is also defective. It is a stated that the said doctor has not been examined to prove the medical report. But on bare perusal of the record, we find that there appears to be no dispute between the parties with regard to essential fact that the respondent wife cannot conceive. The husband in his statement has deposed besides many other things, that the respondent is unable to conceive and he was defrauded. In the statement of the respondent wife, the aforesaid fact has not been disputed at all. She in her short deposition has stated only this much that she was being ill treated by her husband and was turned out from the house. The husband is in job of printing sarees at Bombay. There appears to be no serious dispute with regard to vital fact that the respondent wife does not possesses ovary. 
In para-5 of the petition, it has been stated that the parents of the respondent got married the respondent with the petitioner fraudulently when they had full knowledge that the respondent has no ovary and she had no menstruation cycle ever at her parental house. The said paragraph of the petition has not been denied specifically by the respondent wife in her written statement. Reply is given in para-5 of the written statement. In para-5 of her written statement, there is a general denial. The written statement consists 14 paragraphs but in none of them, it has been stated that the allegation of the husband that she has no ovary has been denied specifically. The allegation of fraud has been pleaded in para-5 of the petition, has also not been denied in specific term. The only defence which can be read out from the written statement is that she was treated with physical cruelty and was subjected to abusive language calling her as Banjh (infertile lady) and used to demand of dowry. In absence of any specific denial and coupled with the evidence led by the parties; and keeping in view of Section 20 sub-section (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act read with section 10 of the Family Courts Act, we do not find substance on the facts of the present case, in the argument that medical report is not proved. Noticeably, except making a denial, the respondent wife has not led any evidence which she could have led easily in rebuttal. The plaint allegation having not been denied shall be treated as correct and uncontroverted. 

The petition was initially filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the amendment was allowed by the order dated 20th July, 2005. The husband was permitted to convert the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He was also permitted to add the plea that on medical examination it has become clear that she has no ovary and the marriage is useless and there cannot be a relationship of husband and wife between the parties. The amendment was incorporated on 20th July, 2005 and the time was given to file additional written statement fixing 26th September, 2005. The order-sheet dated 26th September, 2005 records that no additional evidence was filed and the date was fixed for evidence. Evidence was recorded thereafter and the judgment was pronounced. This also leads to the conclusion that the pleadings with regard to lack of ovary remained uncontroverted by the present appellant and thus, is an admitted fact between the parties. Therefore, on uncontroverted pleadings and evidence even if, the medical report is put aside for the time being, the husband has proved his case. 

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
FIRST APPEAL NO. 319 OF 2006 

Parvati Devi  V Dharm Chandra Seth

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J 
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J. 

Print Page

Denial for want of knowledge is no denial at all

 It is settled law that denial for want of knowledge is no denial at all. The
execution of the sale deed was not specifically denied in the written statement. Once the
execution of the sale deed was not disputed it was not necessary to examine Buchamma
to prove it. The provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 5 require pleadings to be
answered specifically in written statement. This Court in Jahuri Sah & Ors. v. Dwarika
Prasad Jhunjhunwala AIR 1967 SC 109 has laid down that if a defendant has no
knowledge of a fact pleaded by the plaintiff is not tantamount to a denial of existence of
fact, not even an implied denial. Same decision has been followed by Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Dhanbai D/o Late Shri Cowash v. State of M.P. & Ors. 1978 MPLJ 717.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Samrathmal & Anr. v. Union of India, Ministry of
Railway & Ors. AIR 1959 MP 305 relying on P.L.N.K.L. Chettyar Firm v. Ko Lu Doke

AIR 1934 Rang 278 and Lakhmi Chand v. Ram Lal AIR 1931 All. 423, had also opined
that if the defendant did not know of a fact, denial of the knowledge of a particular fact
is not a denial of the fact and has not even the effect of putting the fact in issue.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4816 OF 2016
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13076 of 2007]
Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) Th. Lrs. .. Appellants
Versus
Muddasani Sarojana .. Respondent
Dated:May 5, 2016.
Arun Mishra, J.
Citation:AIR 2016 SC 2250

Print Page

Whether documents are deemed to be admitted if not denied specifically?

I have considered the rival circumstances and the
submissions made. One of the objects of Order 12 Rule 2A of
C.P.C. is to curtail the time taken for recording of evidence and
exhibiting the documents and thereby expediting the trial. Order
12 Rule 2A of C.P.C. in turn provides that every document which a
party is called upon to admit, if not denied specifically or by
necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading
of that party or in his reply to the notice to admit documents, shall
be deemed to be admitted except as against a person under a
disability. The proviso to Order 12 Rule 2A(1) of C.P.C. states that
the Court in its discretion and for reasons to be recorded require
any document so admitted to be proved, otherwise than by such
admission.
It can thus be seen that once, in pursuance of a notice
to admit the documents, the party concerned does not deny the
documents specifically or by necessary implication, the same shall
be deemed to be admitted. In fact, there was no dispute denying
the arguments at the Bar that the documents will have to be
treated to be admitted in evidence. The only question is about
marking of exhibits. Normally, mere marking of documents as
exhibits does not amount to proof and it is always open to the
Court to decide the same in accordance with law. The format of
notice as provided in Form No. 9 of Appendix C in the C.P.C. would
also show that the admission as envisaged under Order 12 Rule 3
of C.P.C. is subject to all just exceptions to the admissibility of
such documents as evidence in such suits. Both the cases cited on
behalf of the respondents arose out of a situation where the
parties had led oral evidence. In other words, in none of the cases
cited above, there was a notice to admit documents given. Be that
as it may, having regard to the provisions of Order 12 Rule 2A of
C.P.C. and the fact that the documents are not specifically denied,
the documents will have to be treated as admitted, subject to all
just exceptions as to the admissibility of the documents as
evidence. Thus, the petition will have to succeed. Accordingly, the
impugned order is hereby set aside. The application filed by the
petitioner is allowed. The documents produced alongwith notice to
admit the documents shall be treated to be admitted, subject to all
just exceptions to their admissibility as evidence.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 653 OF 2015
M/s Sociedade de Fomento
Industrial Limited,

 Versus
 Smt. Sita Shripad Narvekar,

CORAM:- C. V. BHADANG, J.
 DATE:- 19th OCTOBER, 2015.
Citation:2016(2) MHLJ 958

Print Page

When document shall be deemed to be admitted if not denied specifically?

 I have considered the rival circumstances and the
submissions made. One of the objects of Order 12 Rule 2A of
C.P.C. is to curtail the time taken for recording of evidence and
exhibiting the documents and thereby expediting the trial. Order
12 Rule 2A of C.P.C. in turn provides that every document which a
party is called upon to admit, if not denied specifically or by
necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading
of that party or in his reply to the notice to admit documents, shall
be deemed to be admitted except as against a person under a
disability. The proviso to Order 12 Rule 2A(1) of C.P.C. states that
the Court in its discretion and for reasons to be recorded require
any document so admitted to be proved, otherwise than by such
admission.
It can thus be seen that once, in pursuance of a notice
to admit the documents, the party concerned does not deny the
documents specifically or by necessary implication, the same shall
be deemed to be admitted. In fact, there was no dispute denying
the arguments at the Bar that the documents will have to be
treated to be admitted in evidence. The only question is about
marking of exhibits. Normally, mere marking of documents as
exhibits does not amount to proof and it is always open to the
Court to decide the same in accordance with law. The format of
notice as provided in Form No. 9 of Appendix C in the C.P.C. would
also show that the admission as envisaged under Order 12 Rule 3
of C.P.C. is subject to all just exceptions to the admissibility of
such documents as evidence in such suits. Both the cased cited on
behalf of the respondents arose out of a situation where the
parties had led oral evidence. In other words, in none of the cases
cited above, there was a notice to admit documents given. Be that
as it may, having regard to the provisions of Order 12 Rule 2A of
C.P.C. and the fact that the documents are not specifically denied,
the documents will have to be treated as admitted, subject to all
just exceptions as to the admissibility of the documents as
evidence. Thus, the petition will have to succeed. Accordingly, the
impugned order is hereby set aside. The application filed by the
petitioner is allowed. The documents produced alongwith notice to
admit the documents shall be treated to be admitted, subject to all
just exceptions to their admissibility as evidence.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 653 OF 2015
M/s Sociedade de Fomento
Industrial Limited,

 Versus
Smt. Sita Shripad Narvekar,


CORAM:- C. V. BHADANG, J.
 DATE:- 19thOCTOBER, 2015.
Citation;2016(2) MHLJ 958,2016(2) ALLMR107

Print Page

What is principle of specific denial?

 There needs to be specific denial by a witness as to
the suggestion regarding the happening of a meeting for
the Special Court to arrive at the conclusion that the
meeting did not take place. Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with this aspect, which is
reproduced hereunder:
“Order VIII Rule 5 - Specific denial:
(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………”
It is a settled position of law that if an allegation
made in the plaint is not specifically denied in the
written statement, it is treated as admitted, as was also
held by this Court in the case of Balraj Taneja v. Sunil
Madan
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9540-9541 OF 2010
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK …………APPELLANT
Vs.
ANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD & ORS. ……RESPONDENTS

Citation;(2016)1SCC207

Print Page

What will be effect if there is no specific denial of a fact by deft in written statement?

Suresh/Surekha
Kakodkar merely denied paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint in
Regular Civil Suit No. 211/2000 for want of knowledge. Rule 3
of Order VIII of the Code Civil Procedure provides 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 4 of Order VIII
provides that where a defendant denies allegation of fact in the
plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of
substance. The rule further says that if it is alleged that the
defendant received a certain sum of money, it shall not be
sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he
must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof or else
set out how much he received and if an allegation is made with
diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along
with those circumstances. Then, rule 5(1) of Order VIII provides

that 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 the person under disability, provided
that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted
to be proved otherwise than by such admission. In view of the
above provisions of C.P.C., the finding of the learned First
Appellate Court, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 21/2004 that
Suresh/Surekha Kakodkar had not challenged the co-ownership
of Karmalis and Prabhu Dessai in respect of the suit property
bearing Survey No. 143/1 of village Kakora, cannot be said to be
erroneous. Besides the above, the names of Karmalis and
Prabhu Dessai were figuring in Form No. III of survey No. 143/1.
Therefore, it is a fact that the issue no. 1 as to whether the
plaintiffs prove that they are co-owners of the property bearing
Survey No. 143/1, as framed by the Trial Court, in Regular Civil
Suit No. 211/2000, did not arise as it had to be deemed to be an
admitted fact that the plaintiffs are co-owners of the suit
property. Be that as it may, Karmalis and Prabhu Dessai had
produced sufficient oral evidence on record to prove their coownership,
in respect of survey no. 143/1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
SECOND APPEALS NO. 3 of 2005 and 9 of 2009
SECOND APPEAL NO. 3 of 2005
 Shri Suresh Kakodkar,

Versus
 Shri Vinayak Gopinath Naik
Karmali




CORAM :- U. V. BAKRE, J.

Pronounced on : 4 th July, 2014 .
Citation; 2015(3) ALLMR614

Print Page