Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 788 (AP)

Pyla Demudamma v. Cheepurupalli Moogulu (died)

2010-08-20

VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

body2010
Judgment This appeal is by the plaintiff against dismissal of her suit O.S.No.64 of 1998 for declaration of title with respect to A schedule properties and consequential relief of permanent injunction with respect to B schedule properties and for possession of C schedule properties. 2. The plaintiff is the daughter of the defendant. She filed the present suit on the basis of suit notice Ex.A1 = Ex.B15 dated 26.09.1998 and the reply thereto by the defendant under Ex.B17 = Ex.A3 dated 08.10.1998. The foundation of plaintiff’s case is that her mother – Chinna was the only daughter of one Pyla Chinna Musalayya alias Krishnamma, who died intestate about 30 years ago and plaintiff’s mother is his only daughter and legal heir. All the suit schedule properties except few items, which are claimed by the defendant, as his self-acquisitions are, admittedly, properties of Pyla Chinna Musalayya. In the suit notice Ex.A1 referred to above, the plaintiff had asserted the said relationship and under the reply notice Ex.B17 the defendant had disputed all other allegations except relationship. The suit, therefore, was laid by the plaintiff on the foundation that her status as the grand daughter of Pyla Chinna Musalayya was admitted by the defendant and she, further, claimed that her mother being the only heir of said Musalayya succeeded to his entire property described in the suit schedules and that she left a Will dated 06.10.1963 - Ex.A5 and thereunder all the properties of her mother are bequeathed to her. The plaintiff thereby sought exclusion of defendant, her father, from all the plaint schedules by seeking relief of declaration and possession with respect to A and C schedule properties and claiming that she is in possession of B schedule properties sought injunction against the defendant from interfering with her possession. 3. The said suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement and in the forefront he admitted that while the plaintiff is his daughter, the rest of the allegations were denied. It was admitted that the plaint schedule properties originally belong to Musalayya, but the said Musalayya and his wife – Pyla Sannamma had no issues, therefore, he fostered the defendant, who is none other than own sister’s son of Musalayya. It was admitted that the plaint schedule properties originally belong to Musalayya, but the said Musalayya and his wife – Pyla Sannamma had no issues, therefore, he fostered the defendant, who is none other than own sister’s son of Musalayya. It is also alleged that the marriage of the defendant with one Pyla Chinna was also performed by Musalayya and that the plaintiff is the daughter born to the defendant and Chinna. It is stated that the wife of defendant died and thereafter the defendant married another woman by name – Chandramma also at the instance of Musalayya and gave birth to three sons and one daughter. He denied the plaint allegations that plaintiff has any right to A schedule properties and also denied that he is enjoying C schedule properties as licensee of plaintiff. Similarly, the rights claimed by the plaintiff over B schedule properties were also denied. The defendant also pleaded adverse possession by alleging that Musalayya himself handed over all the properties to him and since then, the defendant is continuously enjoying ownership rights and possession and is paying land revenue etc. over the schedule properties and perfected his title by adverse possession. He also alleged that plaintiff’s marriage was performed by defendant 40 years ago by giving all the customary gifts and the plaintiff is residing with her husband’s family and she has no right, title, interest or possession with respect to plaint schedule properties. He, therefore, claims to be a foster son of Musalayya having succeeded to his properties about 35 years ago since the death of Musalayya. He also specifically alleged that house property in A schedule and items 3 and 4 of A schedule are purchased by him under Ex.B43 and as such, they are his separate properties. The Will propounded by the plaintiff Ex.A5 dated 06.10.1963 was disputed as a forged and fabricated document by further alleging that the wife of the defendant and mother of plaintiff – Chinna died long prior to 1963 and as such, the question of her executing a Will does not arise. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings, the Court below framed issues as follows: 1. Whether the Will dated 06.10.63 alleged to be executed by the mother of the plaintiff is true, valid and binding on the defendant, and if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title over the plaint ‘A’ schedule property? 2. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings, the Court below framed issues as follows: 1. Whether the Will dated 06.10.63 alleged to be executed by the mother of the plaintiff is true, valid and binding on the defendant, and if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title over the plaint ‘A’ schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff got title to and possession over plaint ‘B’ schedule property? 3. Whether the defendant is in possession of plaint ‘C’ schedule property as licensee and if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of ‘C’ schedule property? 4. To what relief? 5. The trial Court examined plaintiff as P.W.1 and one of the attestors of Ex.A5 – Will as P.W.2. Exs.A1 to A14 were also marked on behalf of the plaintiff, which comprise of exchange of notices prior to suit; the Will – Ex.A5; the revenue entries; the title documents and certified copies of 10(1) accounts. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and D.Ws.2 to5 were examined in support of his case apart from marking Exs.B1 to B46. The important documents marked by the defendant are: Ex.B1 - death extract of Chipurupalli Sannamma alias Chinna – mother of plaintiff; Ex.B2 - death extract of Pyla Sannamma – wife of Musalayya and Ex.B3 is the death extract of Musalayya. The other documents comprise of 10(1) accounts of lands in different villages, which are in the plaint schedule and the house tax receipts and land revenue receipts relating to house properties therein in addition to registered sale deeds executed by third parties in favour of defendant – Ex.B43. 6. The trial Court decided issue No.1 against plaintiff by rejecting the Will propounded by her on the ground that it contains several suspicious circumstances and that the plaintiff as a propounder failed to remove the same. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff failed to prove that her mother is natural daughter of the deceased Musalayya. On issue No.2, the trial Court held that there is no evidence of plaintiff being in physical possession of B schedule properties and on issue No.3, it found that the plaintiff has no right to seek possession of C schedule properties from the defendant and consequently dismissed the suit. 7. In this appeal, Mr. K.V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant, had made submission based on the documentary evidence alone. 7. In this appeal, Mr. K.V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant, had made submission based on the documentary evidence alone. He had laid lot of emphasis on the admission of the defendant in the reply notice Ex.B17 wherein he accepted the relationship, as pleaded by the plaintiff viz. that plaintiff is the grand daughter of Musalayya. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of translated copy of Ex.A1 is extracted hereunder together with reply of the defendant as contained in reply noticed Ex.B17: Ex.A1: “You are the father, “Chinna” is the mother Pyla Chinna Musalayya is the maternal grandfather of my client. The said Chinna Musalayya died intestate 30 years back, after his death, is only daughter “Chinna” because absolute owner of all his properties, under the Hindu Succession Act. Subsequent to the death of “Chinna” my client, Chinna’s daughter, because the absolute owner of the schedule properties under the Hindu Succession Act as well as will executed by Smt. Chinna.” Ex.B17: “Except the relationship, rest of the allegations in your notice are not true. They all not binding on my client. The allegations that are not denied in this notice cannot be treated as accepted from my client. My client’s father-in-law Pyla Chinna Musalayya during his life time settled all his properties in favour of my client. Subsequent to the death of Chinna Musalayya my client is in absolute possession and has been enjoying the same. Neither your client nor anybody else has any right to question my client regarding the above said properties.” Learned counsel, therefore, contended that D.W.1 in the cross-examination has admitted and stands by his statement in Ex.B17 extracted above. That part of the evidence, which is relied upon is as follows: “Pyla China Musalayya was resident of Tanam Village, China Musalayya brought up me according to me. China Musalayya has no children. I do not know whether the plaintiff in the notice issued by her stated that China Musalayya is her maternal grand father and Chinna is her mother. In Ex.B.17 I have admitted the relationship set out in Ex.B.15 which is equivalent to Ex.A.1. I have also stated in Ex.B.17 that Pyla China Musalayya is my father in law.” 8. I do not know whether the plaintiff in the notice issued by her stated that China Musalayya is her maternal grand father and Chinna is her mother. In Ex.B.17 I have admitted the relationship set out in Ex.B.15 which is equivalent to Ex.A.1. I have also stated in Ex.B.17 that Pyla China Musalayya is my father in law.” 8. Learned counsel has relied upon the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by contending the these admissions are sufficient to decree the suit and has relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in UTTAM SINGH DUGAL & CO. LTD. v. UNION BANK OF INDIA ( 2000 (5) SUPREME 425 ), para 12 of the said decision is relied upon, which is as follows: “12. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Order XII Rule 6 comes under the heading ‘admissions’ and a judgment on admission could be given only after due opportunity to the other side to explain the admission, if any, made; that such admission should have been made only in the course of the pleadings or else the other side will not have an opportunity to explain such admission; that even though, the provisions reads that the Court may at any stage of the suit make such order as it thinks fit effect of admission, if any, can be considered only at the time of trial; that the admission even in pleadings will have to be read along with order VIII Rule 5(1) CPC and Court need not necessarily proceed to pass an order or a judgment on the basis of such admission but call upon the party relying upon such admission to prove its case independently; that during pendency of other suits and the nature of contentions raised in the case, it would not be permissible at all to grant the relief before trial as has been done in the present case; that the expression ‘admissions’ made in the course of the pleadings or otherwise will have to be read together and the expression, ‘otherwise’ will have to be interpreted ejusdem generis’. 9. 9. Learned counsel, however, being conscious of the fact of the fact that the above provision as well as the decision of the Supreme Court relates to admissions in pleadings whereas admissions relied upon in the present case being in the pre-suit reply notice, the learned counsel relied upon a classic decision of the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court of Judicature of England Chancery Division, particularly the decision of CHITTY, J. in HAMPDEN V. WALLIS [1884 Vol. XXVII 251]. That was an action calling upon the defendant to pay into the Court a sum of £2000 and seeking deposit of 250 Egyptian United bonds, based upon admissions not being admissions made in the action. Relying upon earlier decisions it was held that it is not necessary that admission should be in the defence or in the proceedings and therefore, an order was made based on the admissions. 10. The decision of the Madras High Court in REETHALAMMAL v. K. ARUMUGHAM PILLAI (AIR 1978 NOC 289 (MAD)) was relied upon for the proposition that under Order XII Rule 6 CPC admission of the plaintiff though not in the pleadings can also be taken into consideration, as there would be no scope for prejudice. A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in SHIKHARCHAND v. BARI BAI ( AIR 1974 MP 75 ) is also relied upon wherein Order XII Rule 6 CPC was interpreted by stating that it must relate to the facts stated in the plaint itself and that it is open for the Court to pass a judgment on admission on the pleading or otherwise. The word “otherwise” in the said provision clearly indicates that it is open to the Court to base the judgment on statements made by a party not only in the pleadings but also dehors the pleadings and that such admission may be made either expressly or constructively. A decision of this Court in TATAYYA v. NAKARAJU (AIR 1958 AP 611) is also relied upon for the proposition that under Section 35 of the Evidence Act an entry in any public or other official book, register or record stating a fact in issue made in the course of discharge of public duty by public servant is itself a relevant fact. But the said relevancy attached to a birth register statutorily maintained entries from the book is a proof of the entries but the said provision is not applicable with regard to death registers marked as Exs.B1 to B3 in the present case. Another decision in UNION OF INDIA v. VASAVI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 2002 (5) ALT 370 (D.B.) is relied upon to the extent of statement of law in para 25 therein. The said para is extracted hereunder and based on that it is contended that the plaintiff having discharged the initial burden, the burden now shifts on to the defendant, who has failed to discharge the said burden. “25. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof is always on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such declaration. The burden, undoubtedly, lies upon the plaintiff. The weaknesses, if any, in the case set up by the defendants itself would not be a ground to grant any relief to the plaintiff. The submission in this regard is unexceptional. But, once the evidence is let in by both the parties, the question of burden of proof pales into some insignificance. The evidence let in by both the parties is required to be appreciated by the court in order to record its findings in respect of each of the issues settled that may ultimately determine the fate of the suit. Suffice it to observe that the initial burden would always be upon the plaintiff to establish its case. But if the evidence let in by the defendants in support of their case probablises the case set up by the plaintiff, such evidence cannot be ignored and kept out of the consideration. The court is bound to make an assessment and appreciate the cumulative effect of the entire evidence let in by the parties in support of their respective contentions.” 11. Thus, it would be evident from the reply notice of the defendant, where he admitted the relationship, on the plaintiff’s notice, is the sheet anchor of the submissions on behalf of the appellant. 12. Thus, it would be evident from the reply notice of the defendant, where he admitted the relationship, on the plaintiff’s notice, is the sheet anchor of the submissions on behalf of the appellant. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, on the other hand, made detailed submissions based upon the evidence of plaintiff, as P.W.1, and particularly, her cross-examination to contend that even according to the plaintiff – Sannamma, was the wife of Musalayya and she pre-deceased Musalayya about 10 years prior to his death. It was suggested to P.W.1 that her mother died on 12.05.1953, which she denied. She also denied the suggestion that Musalayya has no children of his own by asserting that her mother is the only daughter of Musalayya. It was also suggested to her that her mother was only daughter by courtesy to Musalayya, to which she stated that during life time of her mother she gave a Will to the plaintiff but she is unable to state the age of her mother either at the time of execution of Will or at the time of her death. Learned counsel also disputed that there is any admission, as such, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. According to him, Ex.A1 notice was given by the plaintiff to her father – defendant herein and in the reply, the defendant states that except the relationship, the rest of the allegations are not true and he refers to Musalayya as his father-in-law. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that the defendant was not denying the relationship that plaintiff is his daughter, as such, the said reply notice cannot be read as an admission of other relationships, which plaintiff has referred to in the notice. He further stated that the written statement of the defendant also is consistent with the said stand that plaintiff being the daughter of defendant and his first wife is admitted but the rest of the allegations are denied. He points out para 6 of the written statement that the mother of the plaintiff was the daughter of Pyla Yerukulu and after his marriage was performed by Musalayya, the plaintiff was born to them. 13. Learned counsel, therefore, states that for an admission either within the pleadings or outside the pleadings, the same must be unqualified, absolute and unequivocal so as to rest the decision thereon. 13. Learned counsel, therefore, states that for an admission either within the pleadings or outside the pleadings, the same must be unqualified, absolute and unequivocal so as to rest the decision thereon. No such admission exists in the present case and the said legal position on which reliance is placed by the appellant’s counsel would be of no assistance to him. With regard to other evidence and particularly, Exs.B1 to B3, the death extracts, the learned counsel has placed strong reliance upon the dates of deaths to describe the plaintiff’s case by contending that while Ex.B1 - the death extract of plaintiff’s mother – Sannamma alias Chinna shows that she died on 12.05.1953 and her age is mentioned as 35 years and that the death was reported by Musalayya, who is described as her father. Learned counsel, therefore, states that this document by itself destroys any truth or any validity of Ex.A5 Will, which is dated 06.10.1963 and at least 10 years after the death of the alleged testator. Similarly, wife of Musalayya died on 12.06.1962 as per Ex.B2 where she is described as Pyla Sannamma and her age is shown as 50 years. Here again informer’s name is that of Musalayya and the relationship is shown as husband. Ex.B3 is the death extract of Musalayya himself showing the date of death as 25.05.1965 at the age of 60 years. Learned counsel, therefore, states that the mother of the plaintiff pre-deceased Musalayya and his wife and she died at a very young age. 14. D.W.1 in his evidence states that Pyla China Yerukulu and Simhachalam are the parents of his first wife Chinna. Learned counsel, therefore, states that the first wife of the defendant and mother of the plaintiff, in any case, having pre-deceased Musalayya and his wife, it is difficult to accept that the properties of Musalayya devolved on her. The evidence of D.Ws.1 and 3, according to the counsel, is sufficient to establish that the plaintiff’s mother was not born to Musalayya. A detailed submission was made by the learned counsel to establish that the ages of the deceased mentioned in Exs.B1 to B3 – death extracts also improbabilize the case of the plaintiff, as rightly held by the trial Court. Learned counsel also stated that self-acquisitions of the defendant covered under Ex.B43 cannot form part of the present suit schedule. A detailed submission was made by the learned counsel to establish that the ages of the deceased mentioned in Exs.B1 to B3 – death extracts also improbabilize the case of the plaintiff, as rightly held by the trial Court. Learned counsel also stated that self-acquisitions of the defendant covered under Ex.B43 cannot form part of the present suit schedule. Items 3 and 4 of A schedule, therefore, are established as self-acquisitions by the defendant on the basis of Exs.B43, which remained uncontraverted. It is also highly improbable that exact half of B and C schedule properties, by splitting each survey number as claimed by the plaintiff, are being in her possession and defendant’s possession. This, on the face of it, would be impracticable and improbable, as each survey number cannot be claimed to have been divided exactly into two halves and remained in possession of either of the parties. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the trial Court was right in dismissing the suit. 15. In the light of these contentions, the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the learned counsel for the appellant is justified in seeking a decree based on admissions of the defendant in Ex.B17, in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 2. If for any reason the said question is held against the appellant, whether the judgment of the Court below is sustainable? POINT No.1: 16. To appreciate the contention it is appropriate to extract Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which is as follows: ORDER XII ADMISSIONS R.1… R.2… R.3… R.4… R.5… R.6. Judgment on admissions.- (1) where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced. 17. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced. 17. In the present case, from the alleged admissions appearing in Ex.B17, relevant portion of which is already extracted above, it is obvious that the admissions are in documents prior to the suit viz. the notices exchanged prior to the suit. The thrust of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, is on the word ‘or otherwise’ used in Rule 6 above. Thus, the learned counsel contends that the admissions of the party may be either in the pleadings or elsewhere other than the pleadings; still such admissions are sufficient for the Court to pass a decree. It is also to be noticed that Rule 6 gives discretion to the Court to pass judgment on admission at any stage of the suit either suo motu or on application of the party. The discretion of the trial Court to pass a judgment on admission presupposes that it is not a right of a party to seek judgment on admissions. The purpose and object behind the provision is not requiring the parties to wait for the determination of other questions arising in the litigation and for speedy disposal of such issue, which is admitted. 18. Another provision under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC will also have to be kept in mind while considering the said submission, which in legal parlance is also referred to as rule of non-traverse. ORDER VIII R.1… R.2… R.3… R.4… R.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: Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact to admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. (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. (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, engage 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. The proviso under sub-rule (1) is highlighted in the extracted provision above, which has to be kept in mind and is relevant in appreciating the contentions. 19. The suit in the present case, seeks a primary relief for declaration of plaintiff’s title to A schedule properties based upon the pleading that the mother of the plaintiff was the only daughter of Musalayya. In the absence of any admission by the defendant in a suit of this nature, it cannot be disputed that the plaintiff, who seeks such a declaration must establish the foundational fact for seeking such declaration and such fact would amount to obtaining status of declaration of plaintiff with respect to relationship. The Supreme Court has considered this aspect, reference to which would be made in the following paragraphs. But is important to notice that plaintiff has never raised such ground before the trial Court and had never invited the trial Court to pass a judgment on the basis of alleged admissions of the defendant in Ex.B17 as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal. The suit in entirety was tried as a regular suit where the plaintiff chose to lead evidence, marked documents on her behalf and thereafter, the defendant has led evidence and marked documents and the regular trial on the issues framed was completed and the judgment of the trial Court impugned herein is a judgment disposing of a suit on merits on all the issues. It has also, therefore, to be considered that whether in appeal against judgment and decree whether the appellate Court can decide the appeal by resorting to provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC without considering the appeal on merits; notwithstanding the fact that the appellate Court exercises the same powers as that of the trial Court. 20. Apart from the above aspect, the alleged admission is in the reply notice issued by the defendant prior to the suit. Whether the plaintiff considered the said reply as an admission of her claim is also relevant and is required to be taken into consideration. In para III (c) of the plaint, the relevant averments of the plaintiff are as follows: “III (c)…The plaintiff therefore got issued a Regd. Lawyer’s notice dt. 26.9.98. The defendant received the same and sent a reply dt. 8.10.98 with false and untenable allegations.” 21. The plaintiff states the cause of action for the suit as follows: “The cause of action for the suit arose about 30 years ago when the plaintiff’s grand father died and subsequently the plaintiff’s mother succeeded to all the properties of her father, subsequently about 15 years when the plaintiff succeeded the plaint A schedule properties after the death of the plaintiff’s mother, as per Will dt. 6.10.63 and as per the Provisions of Hindu Succession Act, subsequently when the plaintiff gave the C schedule properties as licence about 10 years ago, subsequently when the notices exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant on 26.9.98 and 8.10.98, subsequently on 25.10.98 when the defendant came to the plaint B schedule properties and tried to dispossess the plaintiff and went away on protest by the plaintiff and on intervention of elders proclaiming that he will dispossess the plaintiff shortly from the B schedule properties…” 22. The plaintiff herself, therefore, states that the said reply notice contains false and untenable allegations and it is clear that neither the plaintiff nor her counsel appearing in the trial Court treated the reply Ex.B17 as containing any admission of plaintiff’s claim. On the facts and in the circumstances above, therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this Court has to apply Order XII Rule 6 CPC and pass judgment in favour of plaintiff. 23. On the facts and in the circumstances above, therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this Court has to apply Order XII Rule 6 CPC and pass judgment in favour of plaintiff. 23. The situation in which the judgment is passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC will be well-illustrated if we notice the following decisions of the Supreme Court: (1) RAZIA BEGUM v. ANWAR BEGUM ( AIR 1958 SC 886 ) was a case where the plaintiff had filed a suit for a declaration that she be declared as legally wedded wife of the defendant and consequential relief. Within ten days of the suit, the defendant filed a written statement admitting the entire claim of the plaintiff. However, further proceedings ensued on account of application for impleadment filed by another wife of the defendant claiming that she alone is the legally wedded wife. The said implead petition, ultimately, reached the Supreme Court where, so far as relevant for our purpose the relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: “…In this case, we are concerned primarily with a declaration as regards status which directly comes under the provisions of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. We are concerned, in this case, with the following provisions of section 42: - "42. Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and, the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief." This section recognizes the right in any person to have a declaration made in respect of his legal character or any right to property. To such a suit for a mere declaration, any person denying or interested to deny the existence of any legal character or the alleged right to any property, would be a necessary party. The plaintiff-appellant chose to implead only her alleged husband, the Prince. There is no clear averment in the plaint that the defendant had ever denied the legal character in question, namely, the status of the plaintiff as his wife. The substance of the plaintiffs cause of action is stated in para. 3 of the plaint. The plaintiff-appellant chose to implead only her alleged husband, the Prince. There is no clear averment in the plaint that the defendant had ever denied the legal character in question, namely, the status of the plaintiff as his wife. The substance of the plaintiffs cause of action is stated in para. 3 of the plaint. From the words used in the said para of the plaint, it is clear that the persons who are alleged to have known the existence of the relationship of husband and wife between the parties would include the respondents 1 and 2, and that the Prince had been trying to suppress the fact of the marriage with the plaintiff so as to lead the members of his family to conclude that the plaintiff is not his wife. The gravamen of the charge against the Prince is that "he refuses to openly acknowledge the plaintiff as his legally wedded wife", and that this conduct has cast a cloud on the plaintiff's status as such wife. Such a conduct on the part of the Prince, it is further alleged, is not only injurious and detrimental to the rights of the plaintiff, but is adversely affecting the rights of the issue of the marriage, meaning thereby, the three daughters by the plaintiff. It is thus clear, as was contended on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, that reading between the lines of the averments aforesaid, it is suggested that not only the defendant - respondent 3 - but the other members of his family, including respondents 1 and 2, were interested in denying the plaintiff's alleged status, and that this suit was being instituted to clear the cloud cast not only upon the plaintiff's status as a legally wedded wife, but upon the status of the three daughters by her. It is clear, therefore, that if the plaintiff had been less disingenuous and had impleaded the first and the second respondents also, as defendants in the suit, the latter could not have been discharged from the action on the ground that they had been unnecessarily impleaded and that no cause of action had been disclosed against them. They would certainly have been proper parties to the suit. They would certainly have been proper parties to the suit. This is a very important aspect of the case which has to be kept in view in order to determine the question whether respondents 1 and 2 had been rightly added as defendants on their own intervention. (9). It is also clear on the words of the statute, quoted above, that the grant of a declaration such as is contemplated by section 42, is entirely in the discretion of the court. At this stage it is convenient to deal with the other contention raised on behalf of the appellant, namely, that in view of the unequivocal admission of the plaintiff's claim by the Prince in his written statement and repeated as aforesaid in his counter to the application for intervention by respondents 1 and 2, no serious controversy now survives. It is suggested that the declarations sought in this case would be granted as a matter of course. In this connection, our attention was called to the provision of r. 6 of O. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down that upon such admissions as have been made by the Prince in this case the court would give judgment for the plaintiff. These provisions have got to be read along with r. 5 of O. 8 of the Code with particular reference to the proviso which is in these terms: - "Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission." The proviso quoted above is identical with the proviso to section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, which lays down that facts admitted need not be proved. Reading all these provisions together, it is manifest that the court is not bound to grant the declarations prayed for, even though the facts alleged in the plaint may have been admitted.” (2) The next decision is BADAT & CO. v. EAST INDIA TRADING CO. ( AIR 1964 SC 538 ) where the Supreme Court considered the proviso to Rule 5 of Order VIII CPC, particularly, with reference to original side pleadings of the Bombay High Court vis-à-vis the mofussil pleadings while construing the aforesaid provision. v. EAST INDIA TRADING CO. ( AIR 1964 SC 538 ) where the Supreme Court considered the proviso to Rule 5 of Order VIII CPC, particularly, with reference to original side pleadings of the Bombay High Court vis-à-vis the mofussil pleadings while construing the aforesaid provision. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “…These three rules from an integrated code dealing with the manner in which allegations of fact in the plaint should be traversed and the legal consequences flowing from its non-compliance. 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. The first paragraph of r. 5 is a reproduction of O. XIX, r. 13, of the English rules made under the Judicature Acts. But in mofussil Courts in India, where pleadings were not precisely drawn, it was found in practice that if they were strictly construed in terms of the said provisions, grave injustice would be done to parties with genuine claims. To do justice between those parties, for which Courts are intended, the rigor of r. 5 has been modified by the introduction of the proviso thereto. Under that proviso the Court may, in its discretion, require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. In the matter of mofussil pleadings, Courts, presumably relying upon the said proviso, tolerated more laxity in the pleadings in the interest of justice. But on the Original side of the Bombay High Court, we are told, the pleadings are drafted by trained lawyers bestowing serious thought and with precision. In construing such pleadings the proviso can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances to prevent obvious injustice to a party or to relieve him from the results of an accidental slip or omission, but not to help a party who designedly made vague denials and thereafter sought to rely upon them for non-suiting the plaintiff. In construing such pleadings the proviso can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances to prevent obvious injustice to a party or to relieve him from the results of an accidental slip or omission, but not to help a party who designedly made vague denials and thereafter sought to rely upon them for non-suiting the plaintiff. The discretion under the proviso must be exercised by a Court having regard to the justice of a cause with particular reference to the nature of the parties, the standard of drafting obtaining in a locality, and the traditions and conventions of a Court wherein such pleadings are filed. In this context the decision in Tildesley v. Harper will be useful. There, in an action against a lessee to set aside the lease granted under a power the statement of claim stated that the done of the power had received from the lessee a certain sum as a bribe, and stated the circumstances; the statement of defence denied that that sum had been given, and denied each circumstance, but contained no general denial of a bribe having been given. The Court held, under rules corresponding to the aforesaid rules of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the giving of the bribe was not sufficiently denied and therefore it must be deemed to have been admitted. Fry J. posed the question thus : What is the point of substance in the allegations in the statement of claim ? and answered in as follows: "The point of substance is undoubtedly that a bribe was given by Anderson to Tildesley, and that point of substance is nowhere met ... no fair and substantial answer is, in may opinion, given to the allegation of substance, namely that there was a bribe. In my opinion it is of the highest importance that this rule of pleading should be adhere to strictly, and that the Court should require the Defendant, when putting in his statement of defence, and the Plaintiff, when replying to the allegations of the Defendant, to state the point of substance, and not to give formal denials of the allegations contained in the previous pleadings without starting the circumstances. As far as I am concerned, I mean to give the fullest effect to that rule. As far as I am concerned, I mean to give the fullest effect to that rule. I am convinced that it is one of the highest benefit to suitors in the Court." It is true that in England the concerned rule is inflexible and that there is no proviso to it as is found in the Code of Civil Procedure. But there is no reason why in Bombay on the original side of the High Court the same precision in pleadings shall not be insisted upon except in exceptional circumstances. The Bombay High Court, in Laxminarayan v. Chimniram Girdhari Lal (1917) I.L.R. 41 Bom. 89, construed the said provisions and applied them to the pleadings in a suit filed in the court of the Joint Subordinate Judge of Ahmednagar. There the plaintiffs sued to recover a sum of money on an account stated. For the purpose of saving limitation they relied in their plaint upon a letter sent by the defendant-firm. The defendants in their written statement sated that the plaintiffs suit was not in time and that "the suit is not saved by the letter put in from the bar of limitation". The question was raised whether in that state of pleadings, the letter could be taken as admitted between the parties and, therefore, unnecessary to be proved. Batchelor, Ag. C.J., after noticing the said provisions, observed: "It appears to us that on a fair reading of paragraph 6, its meaning is that though the letter put in by the plaintiff is not denied the defendants contend that for one reason or another its effect is not to save the suit from the bar of limitation. We think, therefore, that ... the letter, Exhibit 33, must be accepted as admitted between the parties, and therefore, unnecessary to be proved." The written statement before the High Court in that case was one filed in a court in the mofussil; yet, the Bombay High Court applied the rule and held that the letter need not be proved aliunde as it must be deemed to have been admitted in spite of the vague denial in the written statement. I, therefore, hold that the pleadings on the original side of the Bombay High Court should also be strictly construed, having regard to the provisions of Rules 3, 4 and 5 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless there are circumstances wherein a Court thinks fit to exercise its discretion under the proviso to r. 5 of O. VIII. “ (3) UTTAM SINGH DUGAL’s case (1 supra) is a case where, in the resolution of a board meeting of a company alleged admissions were made and a letter was executed with the bank based on the said resolution; relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of this Court in Nagubai Ammal and Ors. v. B. Shama Rao and Ors. : [1956] 1 SCR 451 , as to when an admission becomes relevant. In Nagubai Ammal (supra) which is locus classicus on the subject states that merely because a written admission made in a different context, such admission may not become relevant if the party making it has a reasonable explanation of that. But that is not the position in the present case at all. Learned Counsel for the appellant further adverted to the decision in Balraj Taneja and Anr. v. Sunil Madan and Anr. : AIR 1999 SC 3381 in which the Court was concerned with a case of the effect of not filing a written statement and whether a decree could be passed only on that basis. That was a suit for specific performance and it was held it could not be granted without even writing a detailed judgment and adverted to various provisions of CPC and reference was made to Order XII Rule 6 by way of analogy and referred to the dictum in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum: [1959] 1 SCR 1111, to state that Order XII Rule 6 should be read along with proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8 CPC. In that case, what was noticed was that in cases governed by Section 42 and Section 43 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, the Court is not bound to grant declaration prayed for on the mere admission of the claim by the defendant if the Court has reason to insist upon a clear proof apart from admission. In that case, what was noticed was that in cases governed by Section 42 and Section 43 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, the Court is not bound to grant declaration prayed for on the mere admission of the claim by the defendant if the Court has reason to insist upon a clear proof apart from admission. The result of a declaratory decree confers status not only on the parties but for generations to come and so it cannot be granted on a rule of admissions and, therefore, insisted upon adducing evidence independent of the admission. That is not the position in the present case at all. We fail to see how this decision can be of any use to the petitioner. The decision in re Pandam Tea Co. Ltd.: AIR 1974 Cal 170 pertain to the manner in which the balance sheet should be read and has no bearing on the case. The decision in Shikharchand and Ors. v. Mst. Bari Bai and Ors. AIR 1974 MP 75 , is to the effect that the Rule is wide enough to afford relief not only in cases of admissions in pleadings but also in the case of admission de hors pleadings. State Bank of India v. Midland Industries and Ors. : AIR 1988 Delhi 153 and Union of India v. Feroze & Co. AIR 1962 J & K 66 cannot have any relevance because the facts in arising cases and the present case are entirely different.” The Supreme Court also considered the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in SHIKHARCHAND’s case (3 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. 24. Applying the decisions laid down above to the facts of the present case and keeping in view the fact that the plaintiff herself never treated Ex.B17 reply as an admission by the defendant as well as the further fact that in the written statement categorically stated that he admits the relationship that plaintiff is his daughter only and rest of the allegations were denied, I am not prepared to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that a judgment in terms of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is required to be passed in favour of appellant/plaintiff merely on the basis of the extracted paragraphs above from Ex.B17. Point No.1 is accordingly answered against the plaintiff. POINT No.2: 25. Point No.1 is accordingly answered against the plaintiff. POINT No.2: 25. Though the appellant’s counsel very fairly had advanced submissions on point No.1 above, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim. In the absence of any contentions by the appellant on those aspects, it may not be necessary to consider in detail the aspects of the case on oral and documentary evidence. However, briefly stated, I agree with the reasoning of the trial Court on the issues relating to the merits of the plaintiff’s claim and the main reasons therefor are: (1) The plaintiff’s mother, admittedly, pre-deceased Musalayya and his wife and as per the death extract Ex.B1 she died on 12.05.1953; (2) If plaintiff’s mother was no more after 12.05.1953 she could not have executed alleged Will – Ex.A5 dated 06.10.1963; (3) The suit schedule properties, admittedly, belong to Musalayya and since plaintiff’s mother pre-deceased him, there is no question of plaintiff succeeding to those properties through her mother; (4) Apart from P.W.1 – plaintiff herself, there is no other evidence produced by the plaintiff in support of her claim that her mother was the only daughter of Musalayya and P.W.2 examined by her claims only as attesting witness to Ex.A5 Will. 26. The burden of proof for claiming the declaration, as sought for, being entirely on the plaintiff, I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the trial Court as it has elaborately discussed oral and documentary evidence on either side. Point No.2 also, therefore, deserves to be answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs, as the litigation is between the daughter and the father.