CASE TITLE: Thangam And Another v. Navamani Ammal
CASE NO: Civil Appeal No. 8935 Of 2011
DECIDED ON: 4.03.2024
QUORUM: Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal
FACTS OF THE CASE
This civil appeal has been filed to determine the genuineness of a registered will dated 09.10.1984 executed by Palaniandi Udyar in favour of Navamani Amma. In a suit filed by the respondent in the present case, the trial court had ordered in their favour. The appellant had filed an appeal in the first appellate court, which reversed the trial court’s order. Aggrieved by the order, the respondents filed a second appeal, which overruled the judgement of the first appellate court.
Palaniandi Udyar was the husband of appellant no. 1 Thangam and father of appellant no. 2 Laila. He executed the will on 09.10.1984 in favour of his brother’s daughter, Navamani Ammal. Initially, only the testator’s wife was the defendant in the original suit, but his daughter Laila was later impleaded. The appellant is the third wife and widow of the testator. The previous wives are dead, and the testator does not have any children from them. In the present case, the testator possessed eight acres of land and three houses, duly confirmed by his wife, the appellant. The testator gave the respondent 3.5 acres of land since he treated her like his daughter. The estimated value of the suit property is Rs. 16,000.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The counsel for appellants contended that the circumstances surrounding the will were questionable. The First Appellate Court rightly overruled the order of the trial court. Re-considering facts only to draw alternate inferences does not lie within the scope of the second appeal. No question of law has been raised in the appeal. They contended that the testimonies of the scribe and witnesses to the will were inconsistent. Moreover, the testator was unwell; hence, he couldn’t comprehend the substance of the will. Even the thumbprints on the will and the one on the register in the sub-registrar’s office differed. The testator left behind the remaining properties he possessed for his wife and daughter, but there is no mention of the same in the will. It is contended that the high court has made a mistake in reversing the order of the first appellate court.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The counsel for the respondents contends that when a person executes his will in favour of any relative or person other than the persons whose behalf the will would naturally fall, it is indicative of the testator’s deliberate action and intentions to do so. Moreover, the respondent was like the testator’s own daughter, and it is undisputed that he had only given her part of his property. The appellants still have ownership of the remaining properties. The respondent also solely took care of the testator when his health deteriorated. The appellants neither took care of the respondent when he was ill nor after his death did they take any steps to take care of the properties he had left behind. The respondent’s husband bore the expenses of the testator’s last rites. The suit was filed two years after the testator’s death because the appellants hindered the respondent’s possession of the property. Hence, the High Court has fairly overruled the order given by the first appellate court.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Order VIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code states denial to be specific.
Order VIII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code states evasive denial.
Order VIII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code states specific denial.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court first examined the witness statements to determine whether the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will were suspicious. PW 1’s witness statements were examined to determine the testator’s health around the time of the execution of the will. She testified that the testator was in good health at the time of the execution of the will, although he had been suffering from asthma and cough for the past 5-6 years. The other witnesses also testified that he only had a cough at the time of the execution of the will. However, the statement of defence witness 1, who also happens to be the widowed wife of the testator, contradicts their testimonies. She said that the testator had a ‘lever wound’ and was suffering from ‘dysentery’. He was also not in proper physical condition and was bedridden for three months while she took care of him. After examining the witness statements, the court inferred that the testator was in good health at the time of the execution of the will. Hence, the will is not questionable because of suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.
To determine the genuineness of the will, the court referred to PW 4’s witness statements. He is the scribe of the will and a witness to the thumbprints put by the testator. He stated that the testator had told him to give 3.5 acres of land to the respondents and leave the rest for the appellants. This is proof of the testator’s consciousness when executing the will. PW 2, the attesting witness, reaffirmed the same. DW 2, in his examination, stated that he was asked to be the attesting witness by the respondent’s husband, and he did not see the testator make his thumb impression. However, he did see the testator sitting under a tree and writing his will in favour of his legal heir.
The court observed that the reason behind giving away 3.5 acres of land to the respondent can be easily inferred from the material evidence. The respondent took care of him in his dying days while his wife was away attending her brother’s marriage, duly admitted by PW 1. Additionally, the respondent’s husband bore the expenses for performing the last rites, and his wife and kid weren’t present. The appellants did not even care for the properties he had left behind. Hence, the Hon’ble Court upheld the verdict given by the high ground. The court also observed that the appellants had mentioned in their written statements that they were still reaping the benefits of the contested and other properties he left for them.
The court further comments on drafting the written statements filed by the respondents. It was observed that the plaintiff’s written statements had ten paragraphs besides the prayer, whereas no para-by-para-answer was provided in the respondent’s written statement. Instead, the respondents framed their own story. In such cases, it becomes very hectic and complex for the court to ascertain whether the respondents mean to accept or deny the allegations made by the plaintiffs. Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 provide for the same. Even a general denial is insufficient. Rule 5 states that even the admitted facts cannot be considered undisputed and need to be proved. This rule is an exception to the general rule that facts that are admitted need not be proved.
If the defendant wants to raise preliminary objections, the same can be done in different paragraphs so that the plant can follow the same structure and order in case of a rejoinder. The written statement can also be used to raise additional pleadings if required. This will enable the court to comprehend the facts better and understand the stance of both parties instead of surfing through facts in the written statements. In the case of Badat and Co. Bombay Vs. East India Trading Co,[1] the court observed that rules 3 to 5 describe the manner in which the proceedings are to be conducted. The case of Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam Vs. Atmaram Kumar[2], the court reiterated the same. He added that if every allegation of fact in the plaintiff’s written statement is not admitted or denied by the plaintiff, then it stands to be admitted. The court dismissed the plea since it did not have any merit.
CONCLUSION
This judgement is crucial for all the experienced and aspiring advocates as the Hon’ble Court observes the formatting mistakes commonly made by the parties in submissions. The counsels need to be vigilant and adhere to the specific instructions laid down by the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code pertaining to the same. The counsels must make a diligent effort to ensure the ease of reading and navigation of their submissions as the court opined that this is a frequently occurring problem. Such a conscious effort shall simplify the court operations and ‘streamline the working’.
Judgement Analysis Written by-Rashi Hora
[1] AIR 1964 SC 538
[2] (1993) 4 SCC 6.
