IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR A.C.J. SR. DIV. .......
Smt. Dulari etc. Vs M.C. Ha.....
Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction.
Written statement on behalf of the defendant no. 2.
Sir,
The defendant no. 2 humbly submits as under:-
Preliminary objections:-
That the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form.
That the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit.
That the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act, conduct and acquiescence from filing the present suit.
That the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands before the hon’ble court and have suppressed the true and material facts from the hon’ble court.
That the suit of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous, vexatious and hence is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
Reply Parawise:-
That the para no. 1 of the plaint is wrong and denied as alleged. It is denied that the plaintiffs and performa defendant no. 3 is owner and in possession of commercial properties/shop situated within the abadi deh of M.C. Hathin as mentioned in this para of the plaint. However it is submitted that the assessment register as shown by the plaintiff is mistake of M.C. Hathin, however neither the said entry was reflecting in the previous record nor in the further record of the M.C. Hathin. It is also submitted that presently the answering defendant is absolute owner in possession of four properties out of these six properties and the M.C. Hathin has issued NDC in favour of the answering defendant. It is also submitted that after coming to know about this mistake the answering defendant moved an application to M.C. Hathin on 30-6-2013 as per the actual record of the assessment register of the M.C. Hathin, the said wrong and incorrect entry in the name of the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs and performa defendant have already been corrected by the defendant no. 1 vide order dated 20-2-2019. It is also submitted that the answering defendant alienated the property bearing serial no. 50 property no. 196/12 total measuring 20 sq. yards to Sh. Chander Kant vide sale deed bearing vasika no. 2496 dated 11-12-2018 and the answering defendant has also alienated the property bearing no. 260/12 as per the house tax assessment register of M.C. Hathin total measuring 68 sq. yards to Sh. Vijay Kumar Singla vide sale deed bearing vasika no. 3936 dated 2-3-2022 and presently the said vendees are owner in possession of the properties bearing no. 196/12 and 260/12 and the answering defendant is owner in possession of the remaining properties. It is also submitted that neither plaintiffs nor performa defendant have any concern with the suit property in any manner.
That the para no. 2 of the plaint is wrong and denied. It is denied that previously, Dhani son of Bhagwani resident of Hathin was owner in possession of the land mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint and the husband of the plaintiff no. 1 and father of the plaintiff no. 2 namley Prakash Chand and plaintiff no. 3 and performa defendant no. 3 had only purchased the suit land mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint from Dani son of Bhagwani in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 10-7-1981. It is also denied that the possession of the suit land was also delivered on the same day to the husband of the plaintiff no. 1, father of the plaintiff no. 2, plaintiff no. 3 and performa defendant no. 3. It is also denied that since then they are in peaceful and lawful possession of the suit land mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint without any interruption of any person and using the suit land for commercial purpose. It is also denied that this fact is very well in the knowledge and notice of the defendant no. 1 and 2 and other inhabitants of village Hathin However it is submitted that the said Dani Ram never executed any oral sale in favour of the predecessors of the plaintiffs and they are propounding false stories. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs, performa defendant or their predecessors in interest have no concern with the suit properties in any manner. It is also submitted that the answering defendant inherited the suit properties from his predecessors in interest and now other brothers of the defendant has also left their entire share in the suit properties in favour of the answering defendant voluntarily and in this manner the answering defendant succeeded the suit properties individually and presently is owner in possession of the four properties as mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint and his vendees are owner in possession of two properties as mentioned above.
That the para no. 3 of the plaint is wrong and denied. It is denied that the name of the husband of the plaintiff no. 1 and father of the plaintiff no. 2 namely Prakash Chand, plaintiff no. 3 and performa defendant no. 3 entered in the assessment register of M.C. Hathin in the column of ownership for the year 2012-13 and the vendor namely Dani has expired issueless and if any entry in the name of the vendor namely Dani are also illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs as well as performa defendant no. 1 in any manner as he had already sold out his legal rights/suit property to the husband of the plaintiff and father of the plaintiff no. 2 and performa defendant no. 3. However it is submitted that Dani Ram never alienated the said properties in favour of the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs or performa defendant as alleged. It is further submitted that the answering defendant and his other brothers are the nearest successors of the said Dani and inherited the four properties from him and two other properties which have already been sold out by the answering defendant and his brother were succeeded by him from his parents. It is also submitted that the other brothers of the answering defendant have also left their all right, title or interest in the suit properties in a settlement between all of them. It is also submitted that presently the record of M.C. Hathin qua the suit properties is coming in the name of the answering defendant legally and validly and plaintiffs, performa defendant and public at large of village Hathin is aware about the ownership and possession of the answering defendant over the suit properties. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs are assailing their rights over the suit properties on the basis of stray and mistaken entry in the assessment register for year 2012-13 which has already been rectified by the competent authority and in this manner the entire contents of the plaintiffs are false, frivolous and vexatious and they or performa defendant did not derive any right, title or interest of the suit property.
That the para no. 4 of the plaint is wrong and denied. It is denied that the defendant no. 2 is a very clever and cunning person and having evil eyes upon the suit land mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint and the defendant no. 2 in collusion with the defendant no. 1 wrongly, illegally and secretary and without any knowledge and notice of the plaintiffs and performa defendant no. 3 entered his name in the latest assessment register of M.C. Hathin in the column of ownership without any right, title or interest or without producing any legal documents which is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and performa defendant no. 3 in any manner and the defendant no. 1 is doing work under the pressure of MLA Narender Gupta. It is denied that the defendant no. 2 is a political and forceful person and in collusion with the defendant no. 1 wants to grab the valuable property of the plaintiffs and performa defendant no. 2 illegally and unlawfully and also with malafide and dishonest intention. However it is submitted that the plaintiffs have no concern with the suit property and it is also submitted that the record in the house tax register was coming in the name of the answering defendant and his brother Om Prakash and was wrongly or due to some inadvertent mistake came in the name of the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs and performa defendant without any basis and the same has already been rectified being baseless and illegal and now the plaintiffs are propounding false stories and are raising false allegations upon the answering defendant and defendant no. 1. It is also submitted that the answering defendant is absolute owner in possession of the suit properties except as already alienated by him in favour of his vendees. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs wants to grab the suit property without having any right, title or interest in the same and baselessly. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs are propounding false stories. It is also submitted that when the plaintiffs and performa defendant have no right, title or interest then there is no need to serve any notice etc.
That the para no. 5 of the plaint is wrong and denied. It is denied that the defendant no. 2 is strong headed and political person and now fully bent upon to interfere into the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiffs and performa defendant no. 3 illegally and unlawfully and also gave threat to alienate the suit property mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint to any other person and also gave threat to create charge over the same illegally and unlawfully and without having any right, title or interest to do so, if the defendant no. 2 succeed in his illegal motive in that case the plaintiffs and performa defendant no. 3 will suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money or otherwise. However it is submitted that when the plaintiffs or performa defendant are neither owner nor in possession over the suit properties as mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint and have also no right ,title or interest in the same then the alleged story of alleged interference in the possession and threat to alienate is not arises in any manner, moreover the answering defendant being owner in possession of the suit properties except as sold by him have every right to use the same as per his wishes. It is furthers submitted that the alleged story of irreparable loss and injury is false and frivolous.
That the para no. 6 of the plaint is wrong and denied. The plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit against the defendant and the alleged cause of action is false and frivolous.
That the para no. 7 of the plaint is matter of record.
That the para no. 8 of the plaint is legal.
That the para no. 9 of the plaint is legal.
That the para no. 10 of the plaint is wrong and denied. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief against the defendants. It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs may kindly be dismissed with special costs, in the interest of justice.
Verification:-
Verified that the paras of P.Os. and paras no. 1 to 7 & 10 are correct to the best of my knowledge and paras no. 8 & 9 are correct to my belief.
Verified at
Dated:
Defendant no. 2
Through counsel
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR A.C.J. SR. DIV. ..........
Smt. Dulari etc. Vs M.C. Ha....
Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction.
Reply of application for temporary injunction U/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC .
R/Sir,
The respondent no. 2 humbly submits under:-
That para no. 1 of the application is a matter of record. However the defendants have filed the written statement in the hon’ble court, contents of the same may kindly be treated as part of reply of the present application.
That the para no. 2 of the application is wrong and denied. It is denied that previously, Dhani son of Bhagwani resident of Hathin was owner in possession of the land mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint and the husband of the plaintiff no. 1 and father of the plaintiff no. 2 namley Prakash Chand and plaintiff no. 3 and performa defendant no. 3 had only purchased the suit land mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint from Dani son of Bhagwani in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 10-7-1981. It is also denied that the possession of the suit land was also delivered on the same day to the husband of the plaintiff no. 1, father of the plaintiff no. 2, plaintiff no. 3 and performa defendant no. 3. It is also denied that since then they are in peaceful and lawful possession of the suit land mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint without any interruption of any person and using the suit land for commercial purpose. It is also denied that this fact is very well in the knowledge and notice of the defendant no. 1 and 2 and other inhabitants of village Hathin However it is submitted that the said Dani Ram never executed any oral sale in favour of the predecessors of the plaintiffs and they are propounding false stories. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs, performa defendant or their predecessors in interest have no concern with the suit properties in any manner. It is also submitted that the answering defendant inherited the suit properties from his predecessors in interest and now other brothers of the defendant has also left their entire share in the suit properties in favour of the answering defendant voluntarily and in this manner the answering defendant succeeded the suit properties individually and presently is owner in possession of the four properties as mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint and his vendees are owner in possession of two properties as mentioned above.
That the para no. 3 of the application is wrong and denied. It is denied that the name of the husband of the plaintiff no. 1 and father of the plaintiff no. 2 namely Prakash Chand, plaintiff no. 3 and performa defendant no. 3 entered in the assessment register of M.C. Hathin in the column of ownership for the year 2012-13 and the vendor namely Dani has expired issueless and if any entry in the name of the vendor namely Dani are also illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs as well as performa defendant no. 1 in any manner as he had already sold out his legal rights/suit property to the husband of the plaintiff and father of the plaintiff no. 2 and performa defendant no. 3. However it is submitted that Dani Ram never alienated the said properties in favour of the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs or performa defendant as alleged. It is further submitted that the answering defendant and his other brothers are the nearest successors of the said Dani and inherited the four properties from him and two other properties which have already been sold out by the answering defendant and his brother were succeeded by him from his parents. It is also submitted that the other brothers of the answering defendant have also left their all right, title or interest in the suit properties in a settlement between all of them. It is also submitted that presently the record of M.C. Hathin qua the suit properties is coming in the name of the answering defendant legally and validly and plaintiffs, performa defendant and public at large of village Hathin is aware about the ownership and possession of the answering defendant over the suit properties. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs are assailing their rights over the suit properties on the basis of stray and mistaken entry in the assessment register for year 2012-13 which has already been rectified by the competent authority and in this manner the entire contents of the plaintiffs are false, frivolous and vexatious and they or performa defendant did not derive any right, title or interest of the suit property.
That the para no. 4 of the application is wrong and denied. It is denied that the defendant no. 2 is a very clever and cunning person and having evil eyes upon the suit land mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint and the defendant no. 2 in collusion with the defendant no. 1 wrongly, illegally and secretary and without any knowledge and notice of the plaintiffs and performa defendant no. 3 entered his name in the latest assessment register of M.C. Hathin in the column of ownership without any right, title or interest or without producing any legal documents which is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and performa defendant no. 3 in any manner and the defendant no. 1 is doing work under the pressure of MLA Narender Gupta. It is denied that the defendant no. 2 is a political and forceful person and in collusion with the defendant no. 1 wants to grab the valuable property of the plaintiffs and performa defendant no. 2 illegally and unlawfully and also with malafide and dishonest intention. However it is submitted that the plaintiffs have no concern with the suit property and it is also submitted that the record in the house tax register was coming in the name of the answering defendant and his brother Om Prakash and was wrongly or due to some inadvertent mistake came in the name of the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs and performa defendant without any basis and the same has already been rectified being baseless and illegal and now the plaintiffs are propounding false stories and are raising false allegations upon the answering defendant and defendant no. 1. It is also submitted that the answering defendant is absolute owner in possession of the suit properties except as already alienated by him in favour of his vendees. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs wants to grab the suit property without having any right, title or interest in the same and baselessly. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs are propounding false stories. It is also submitted that when the plaintiffs and performa defendant have no right, title or interest then there is no need to serve any notice etc.
That the para no. 5 of the application is wrong and denied. It is denied that the defendant no. 2 is strong headed and political person and now fully bent upon to interfere into the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiffs and performa defendant no. 3 illegally and unlawfully and also gave threat to alienate the suit property mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint to any other person and also gave threat to create charge over the same illegally and unlawfully and without having any right, title or interest to do so, if the defendant no. 2 succeed in his illegal motive in that case the plaintiffs and performa defendant no. 3 will suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money or otherwise. However it is submitted that when the plaintiffs or performa defendant are neither owner nor in possession over the suit properties as mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint and have also no right ,title or interest in the same then the alleged story of alleged interference in the possession and threat to alienate is not arises in any manner, moreover the answering defendant being owner in possession of the suit properties except as sold by him have every right to use the same as per his wishes. It is furthers submitted that the alleged story of irreparable loss and injury is false and frivolous.
That the para no. 6 of the application is wrong and denied. Neither the plaintiffs have a good prima facie case nor balance of convenience lies in their favour.
That the para no. 7 of the application is wrong and denied. The plaintiffs/applicants are not entitled for any relief through this application, hence the application may kindly be dismissed with costs, in the interest of justice.
Dated:- Defendant no. 2.
Dhoopi son of Sh. Sobha Ram, resident of H. No.
Through Counsel
Comments
Post a Comment