The case of K. Laxmanan vs. Thekkayil Padmini & Ors., decided by the Supreme Court of India on 3rd December 2008, primarily dealt with issues concerning the proof of a Will and a Gift Deed in an inheritance dispute. It also addressed a significant legal question: whether the non-filing of a replication amounts to an admission of the averments made in a written statement.

The dispute arose when the respondent-plaintiff, one of the daughters of the deceased, filed a suit seeking partition of the properties left behind by her father. The appellant, the son of the deceased, claimed exclusive ownership of certain properties on the basis of a Gift Deed and a Will executed in his favor. The case progressed through multiple judicial forums, ultimately leading to a Supreme Court ruling that reinforced established principles of civil procedure and evidence law, particularly in relation to pleadings, burden of proof, and the validity of testamentary documents.

Factual Background:
The case involved the estate of Chathu, who passed away in 1975, leaving behind three daughters and a son, K. Laxmanan (the appellant). The respondent, one of Chathu’s daughters, filed a suit for partition, claiming that all legal heirs were entitled to an equal one-fourth share of the properties left behind by their father.

The appellant contested this claim, arguing that several properties were not subject to partition as they had been transferred to him exclusively through a Gift Deed (Ext. B2) and a Will (Ext. B3), both executed by Chathu on 26th April 1974. According to the appellant, the Gift Deed conferred ownership of items 4 and 5 in the suit property upon him, while the Will bequeathed items 6 to 8 and 10 to 12 to him. He also contended that the properties described as items 1 to 3 and 13 to 14 were assigned to him through other documents, namely Ext. B1 and Ext. B4.

The plaintiff/respondent challenged the authenticity of both the Will and the Gift Deed, alleging that they were surrounded by suspicious circumstances and had not been properly executed. The respondent did not file a formal replication specifically denying the claims made in the written statement but contested the validity of these documents in the course of legal proceedings.

Procedural Background:
The case was initially heard by the Trial Court, which ruled in favor of the appellant. It held that the Gift Deed and the Will had been properly proved and concluded that only item No. 9 in the suit schedule was available for partition. The court found that the appellant had exclusive rights over the remaining properties.

The First Appellate Court, however, reversed this decision, holding that the Gift Deed and the Will were not duly proved and were, therefore, invalid. It ruled that all the properties in question (except for items 1 to 3 and 13 to 14, which were assigned through other valid documents) were available for partition.

The Kerala High Court, in Second Appeal, upheld the findings of the First Appellate Court, reinforcing that the appellant had failed to discharge his burden of proving the execution and validity of the disputed documents. The court also rejected the contention that the non-filing of a replication amounted to an admission of the appellant’s claims.

The matter was then brought before the Supreme Court of India.

Issues Involved in the Case:

• Whether the non-filing of a replication by the plaintiff amounts to an admission of the written statement’s averments, particularly regarding the validity of the Will and Gift Deed?
• Whether the Will (Ext. B3) was validly executed and could be relied upon by the appellant.
• Whether the Gift Deed (Ext. B2) was duly proved in accordance with law and whether its execution could be considered legally sound.
• Whether the burden of proof lay on the appellant to establish the authenticity of the disputed documents.

Detailed Submission of Parties:
The appellant argued that the plaintiff had not specifically denied the execution of the Gift Deed and Will in a replication, and as a result, the claims made in the written statement should be deemed admitted. He relied on Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which mandates proof of attested documents, and contended that this requirement applied only to Wills and not to Gift Deeds. The appellant also asserted that the execution of the Gift Deed was impliedly admitted since the respondent had not explicitly denied it in her pleadings.

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that mere non-filing of a replication does not constitute an admission of the written statement’s claims. She submitted that the validity of the Will and Gift Deed had been specifically disputed in affidavits filed during interlocutory proceedings and that evidence had been led on these issues in the trial. The respondent also emphasized that the appellant had failed to prove the due execution and attestation of the Will as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

Discussion on Judgments:
The Supreme Court referred to several landmark cases on the law of pleadings and the proof of documents.

In Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 529] and Pushpavathi v. Chandraraja Kadamba [(1973) 3 SCC 291], the court had previously held that a Will must be proved with clear and cogent evidence, particularly when suspicious circumstances exist. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle, stating that the onus was on the appellant to remove suspicions surrounding the execution of the Will.

In Rosammal Issetheenammal Fernandez v. Joosa Mariyan Fernandez [(2000) 7 SCC 189], the court had ruled that if the execution of a document is specifically denied, the burden of proof remains on the party relying on the document. The Supreme Court applied this ruling, holding that the burden was on the appellant to prove the validity of both the Will and the Gift Deed.

Reasoning and Analysis of Judge:
The Supreme Court held that non-filing of a replication does not amount to an admission of the written statement’s contents. Pleadings under the Civil Procedure Code consist of a plaint and a written statement, and a replication is not mandatory unless specifically directed by the court.

Non-filing of a replication does not amount to admission of the written statement’s averments. 

A Will must be proved with clear evidence, especially when surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Section 68 of the Evidence Act mandates examination of an attesting witness to prove a document’s execution. The burden of proof lies on the propounder of a disputed document to establish its genuineness. A registered Gift Deed does not automatically become valid unless properly proved in court.

The court further observed that since the execution of the Will and Gift Deed was actively contested during trial and evidence was led on these issues, the appellant’s claim that they should be deemed admitted due to non-filing of a replication was without merit.

Regarding the validity of the Will, the court found that the attesting witnesses were not examined, and there were inconsistencies in the signatures of the testator. The suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will had not been adequately addressed by the appellant.

As for the Gift Deed, the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, it must be proved by at least one attesting witness if execution is specifically denied. Since no attesting witness had been examined, the Gift Deed was not legally proved.

Final Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings of the Kerala High Court and the First Appellate Court. It held that the Will and Gift Deed were not duly proved and that the properties were, therefore, available for partition. The ruling clarified that mere non-filing of a replication does not result in an admission of the written statement's claims.

Case Title: K. Laxmanan vs. Thekkayil Padmini & Ors.
Date of Order: 3rd December, 2008
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21251 of 2006)
Neutral Citation: AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 951, (2009) 1 SCC 354
Name of Court: Supreme Court of India
Name of Judges: Hon'ble Justices Mukundakam Sharma and Justice Tarun Chatterjee

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539