Written statement default does not prove title; counter-claimant must still establish ownership with admissible evidence.

Non-filing of a written statement to a counter-claim may amount to an admission of pleaded facts, but it does not relieve the counter-claimant from proving title or other entitlement by admissible evidence on a preponderance of probability. The defaulting party is not wholly barred from participating: it may cross-examine the counter-claimant and address arguments, though without leading independent evidence and only to test the truth and weaknesses of the opposing case. On the facts, the evidence did not establish ownership, purchase from personal funds, or benami ownership, so the counter-claim failed and the concurrent findings were affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the non-filing of a written statement to a counter-claim constitutes an admission, and whether such non-filing prevents the party from cross-examining the counter-claimant or otherwise defending the case.

Analysis: A counter-claim attracts the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, including the duty to produce relied upon documents and the obligation to deal specifically with allegations. Non-filing of a written statement may amount to an admission of the pleaded facts, but the opposing party must still establish its own claim on the strength of its own evidence and on a preponderance of probability. Even where a written statement to the counter-claim is not filed, the defaulting party is not entirely shut out and may cross-examine the other side and address arguments, though without leading independent evidence and within the limited purpose of testing the truth, falsity, or weaknesses of the case set up by the counter-claimant. On the facts, the appellant produced no reliable documentary trail to prove ownership, purchase from his own funds, or a benami arrangement, and the materials and cross-examination were insufficient to sustain the counter-claim.

Conclusion: The non-filing of a written statement did not by itself entitle the appellant to succeed on the counter-claim, and the appellant failed to prove title or benami ownership.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings below were affirmed and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking declaratory relief or asserting benami ownership must prove its own title by admissible evidence; non-filing of a written statement to a counter-claim does not dispense with that burden and does not bar cross-examination limited to exposing defects in the opponent's case.

---