WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1, DEFENDANT NO.2 AND DEFENDANT NO.3.

IN THE COURT OF XXXXX DELHI.

CS/XXX/XXXX

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXX : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXX : DEFENDANTS

N.D.O.H: ………2024

S. NO.	PARTICULARS	PAGES
1.	WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1 NAMELY XXXXX, DEFENANT NO.2 NAMELY XXXXX AND DEFENDANT NO.3 NAMELY XXXXX TO THE CAPTIONED SUIT ALONG WITH THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS
2.	REPLY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1 NAMELY XXXXX, DEFENANT NO.2 NAMELY XXXXX AND DEFENDANT NO.3 NAMELY XXXXX TO APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ALONG WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS
3.	APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 1 OF CPC SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY OF IN FILING THE ACCOMPANYING WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 TO 3 ALONG WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS

DELHI DEFENDANT NO.1TO3

(Through SPA holder)

THROUGH

DATED

XXXXX

NEW DELHI – 1100**

IN THE COURT OF XXXXX DELHI.

CS/XXX/XXXX.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXX : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXX : DEFENDANTS

N.D.O.H: ………2024

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1, DEFENDANT NO.2 AND DEFENDANT NO.3 [“THE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS”],

At the outset, it is submitted that the Plaint deserves at the threshold as the reliefs so sought are not only legally untenable but also the Plaint has been instituted by concealment of material facts, information, and crucial documents. Before adverting to the preliminary objections upon the maintainability of the Suit and para-wise reply to the averments in the Suit, a brief true factual narrative has been advanced to tender correct position before this Hon’ble Court.

TRUE AND CORRECT FACTUAL NARRATIVE BY WAY OF PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

a. That XXXX S/o XXXX and XXXX were brothers and after their father’s demise were admittedly owners of 975 sq.ydsin the Khasra No. XXX, Khata No. XXX situated in the Abadi and village XXXXX , Delhi-XXXX.

b. Admittedly, XXXX S/o Late XXXX had been the recorded owner of 487.5 sq.yds in the Khasra No. XXXX, Khata No. XXXX situated in the Abadi and village XXXXX, Delhi-XXXX and had been in separate/divided and exclusive possession of his part.Admittedly, after the death of Late XXXX, his sons being XXXX and XXXX conferred ownership upon XXXX of 353.5 sq. ydsin the Khasra No. XXXX, Khata No. XXXX situated in the Abadi and village XXXX, Delhi-XXXX from the XXXX portion [“the Suit Property”].

c. Admittedly, the Suit Property was sold by XXXXX to XXXXX and XXXXX vide registered Irrevocable GPA dated 14.07.2005, ATS dated 14.07.2005, Will dated 14.07.2005, Affidavit dated 14.07.2005 and Receipt dated 14.07.2005.

d. Admittedly, the Suit Property was further sold by XXXXX and XXXXX to XXXXX and XXXXX vide registered Sale Deed dated 09.03.2007.

e. Admittedly, the Suit Property was further sold by XXXXX and XXXXX to XXXXX, XXXXX and XXXXX [“the answering defendants”] vide registered Sale Deed dated 09.08.2012 and this way the answering defendants admittedly became the bonafide owners of the Suit Property.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE SUIT:

a. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE PRESENT SUIT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF SEEKING ‘PART PARTITION’ OF THE PROPERTY:

-Admitted the Plaintiff in the Plaint itself affirms that the answering defendants are owners of 353.5 sq. yds out of XXXX Share i.e 475 sq.yds. It is the case of the Plaintiff that XXXX share and XXXX Share are jointly admeasuring. 975 sq.yds. and that as the shares of XXXX and XXXX is under joint ownership thus the Suit Property also forms part of joint ownership as they have inherited XXXX share. However, interestingly, the alleged partition has been sought only of the Suit Property which is 353.5 sq.yds and not of 975 sq.yds. Thus, even on the basis of pleadings/averment in the Plaint, the Suit deserves dismissal at the threshold on account of seeking alleged partition in part i.e the Suit Property being 353.5 sq yds instead of seeking alleged partition of975 sq.yds being the alleged joint share of XXXX and XXXX.

b. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE SUIT AND NO CHALLENGE TO THE ERSTWHILE AS WELL AS PRESENT TITLE DOCUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS QUA THE SUIT PROPERTY RENDERS THE SUIT LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AT THE THRESHOLD:

Reference is made to para-10 of the Plaint, wherein there has been a specific reference to the other connected 1^st Suit so filed by the Defendant No.9 [“the 1^st Suit”]. Admittedly, in the 1^st Suit, the answering defendants and other defendants had categorically and unequivocally enumerated the disclosure of answering defendants being the owners of the Suit Property. The answering defendants had further filed the title documents in the 1^st Suit, which explicitly entails the details of erstwhile owners as well as title documents. Thus,in spite of active knowledge pertaining to the existence of erstwhile title documents as well as erstwhile title holders, till date neither the erstwhile title documents have been challenged, nor the present title documents in favor of the answering defendants have been challenged vide the present Suit. It is further interesting to note that the erstwhile title holders/erstwhile owners of the Suit Property have also not been impleaded in the present Suit and further no relief sought against them. Thus, in light of the aforesaid narrative, it is much evident that the Suit is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties in the Suit and non-challenge to the erstwhile and present title documents in favor of the answering defendants.

c. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LIMITATION QUA ALL THE RELIEFS:

The Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Reference is made from the averments and pleadings of the Plaintiff. Admittedly, essentialparagraph in the plaint being- “when the cause of action for filing the plaint arose” is missing from the averments in the Plaint. The Suit deserves dismissal on this count alone. Even, for the sake of arguments, if such glaring illegality is over-looked and an attempt is made to decipher the cause of action from the pleadings, it is much evident that the present Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation basis the following foundational facts:

- Acknowledgment by the Plaintiff in the present Suit qua filing of the 1^st Suit by the Defendant no.9 i.e Plaintiff’s brother in Jan,2020. However, the present relief for declaration is being sought vide the present Suit in Aug,23 i.e after more than 3 years. That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between Late Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma [i.e the father of the Plaintiff], Basanti Devi [grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Ramwati. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of XXXXX, XXXXX having compromised the Suit No. XXXX with erstwhile owner- XXXX titled as- XXXXX W/o XXXX and XXXX S/o XXXX Vs XXXX W/o XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC. Therefore, cause of action if any had been exhausted way back in 1995/96. Thus, the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.

- The relief of partition is not maintainable as only ‘part partition’ is sought by the Plaintiff.

- Furthermore, the relief of possession has not neither been valued in the Plaint,nor any court fees paid on the same. Thus, no basis whatsoever has been made out to seek any relief of possession.In any case, the Plaintiff admittedly has not been in possession of the Suit Property for more than 12 years. Thus, even the relief of possession is not legally sustainable.

Basis, the settled jurisprudence on the said issues and the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court on the said issues, the Suit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

d. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL ON ACCOUNT BAR UNDER ORDER-2, RULE-2 AS ERSTWHILE SUIT I.E 1^ST SUIT:

Admittedly, the Plaintiff by his own admission in the Plaint admits that he had been duly aware of the 1^st Suit filed by the Defendant No.9/his brother. Admittedly, the 1^st Suit was filed in Jan,20. It is further an admitted position on record that Order 2 Rule 2 mandates that a plaintiff must include their entire claim related to a specific cause of action in one lawsuit. If the plaintiff intentionally or unintentionally omits a part of the claim, they cannot file a separate suit for it without the court's permission. In any case, the present Suit is also barred on account erstwhile Suit pending in the Court. It is an admitted position of the Plaintiff that he was aware about the 1^st Suit since inception, thus no refuge can even be taken to the effect that he was’nt aware about the 1^st Suit. Thus, the present Suit is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

e. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A PERUSAL OF 1^st SUIT FILED BY GAURAV SHARMA [THE DEFENDANT NO.9 SHOWS THAT THE PRESENT SUIT IS NOT ONLY A COLLUSIVE SUIT BUT IS CONTUMACIOUS ATTEMPT TO USURP THE SUIT PROPERTY.

Following instances/particulars decipherable from the pleadings of the parties, which leads to unequivocal conclusion that the present Suit has been filed not only as a collusive suit but also with malafide and in order to extort money from the answering Defendants. Such instances interalia include:

-Reference to the memo of parties, address of Plaintiff i.e Gaurav Sharma in the 1^st Suit and XXXXX /Plaintiff in the present Suit is similar.

-At the instance of 1^st Suit itself, the Plaintiff in the 1^st Suit knew that he or his family members in no manner are owners of the Suit Property. Admittedly, the Plaintiff in the present Suit also confirms the filing of the 1^st Suit was under his knowledge. Thus, when prayer for partition is allegedly sought vide the present Suit, it is undecipherable as to how in the 1^st Suit, the Plaintiff therein claimed to be the owner of the Suit Property.

-Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of XXXXX and XXXXX is around 975 sq.yds. However, the alleged partition is sought only for around 353.5 sq. yds. The only untenable explanation offered is that rest of the portion is under illegal possession and thus alleged partition is only sought qua the Suit Property i.e 353.5 sq. yds. The aforesaid speaks volumes about the conduct and real intent/motive behind the Plaintiff and his family members.

-Even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between XXXXX [i.e the father of the Plaintiff], XXXX [grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being XXXX being Suit No. XXXX and the same was withdrawn by XXXXX i.e father of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, no partition or other relief as allegedly sought vide the present Suit had been preferred. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC.

f. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL ON ACCOUNT OF PECUNIARY LIMIT/JURISDICTION AND ON COUNT OF ERRONEOUS VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND NON-PAYMENT OF THE COURT FEE ON RELIEF OF POSSESSION:

Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of XXXXX and XXXXX is around 975 sq.yds . However, the alleged partition is sought only for around 353.5 sq. yds and accordingly, the Suit is valued at 1,68,00,000/-. It is settled law that the Suit for partition cannot be entertained in part and thus for determining pecuniary limit, the valutation ought to be as per the complete partionable land i.e 975 sq.yds as alleged by the Plaintiff himself. If that be so, the Suit for the basis of pecuniary limit would be valued at around 5 crores which clearly disentitles this Hon’ble Court from proceeding forward. Thus, the Suit deserves dismissal on this count alone.

g. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL WITH COSTS ON ACCOUNT MATERIAL CONCEALMENT OF PREVIOUS SETTLEMENT IN SUITS WITH THE ERSTWHILE OWNERS:

That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between XXXXX [i.e the father of the Plaintiff], XXXXX [grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being XXXX. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of XXXXX, XXXXX having compromised the Suit No. XXX with erstwhile owner- XXX titled as- XXXX W/o XXXXX and XXXXX S/o XXXXX Vs XXXXX W/o XXXXX, XXXX, XXXX and Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC.

h. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ALLEGED WILL DATED 22.03.1956 BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE GRANDFATHER OF THE PLAINTIFF BECAME THE OWNER OF THE SUIT PROPERTY HAS NEITHER BEEN ATTACHTED NOR ANY PROOF QUA THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME HAVE BEEN FILED ON RECORD. THUS, ON THIS GROUND ALONE, THE SUITE DESERVES DISMISSAL AT THE OUTSET

PARA-WISE REPLY:-

Reply to Para-1:

1. It is submitted that the answering Defendants are successive purchasers of the Suit Property and the averments as stated in para-1 is not in personal knowledge of the answering Defendants. However, the answering Defendants would acquiesce to averment in the said para, if proved on record by the Plaintiff.That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para 2:

2. In reply to the said para-2, it is submitted that devolution of title of the answering defendants emanates from XXXXX. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the XXXX pursuant to Oral Partition acquired 975 sq.yds and after the death of the XXXXX, the said 975 sq.yds devolved solely upon his two (2) sons namely XXXXX and XXXXX, whereby both the sons admittedly acquired 487.5 sq. yds each, respectively. It is further submitted that both the sons had duly partitioned the property and were in separate and exclusive possession of their respective portions as admittedly, no record or proof to claim possession by Plaintiff or any of their family members on the Suit Property has ever been filed on record.The family tree so filed is denied for the want of knowledge. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para- 3:

3. In reply to the said para-3, it is submitted that devolution of title of the answering defendants emanates from XXXXX. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the XXXXX pursuant to Oral Partition acquired 975 sq.yds and after the death of the XXXXX, the said 975 sq.yds devolved solely upon his two (2) sons namely XXXXX and XXXXX, whereby both the sons admittedly acquired 487.5 sq. yds each, respectively. It is further submitted that both the sons had duly partitioned the property and were in separate and exclusive possession of their respective portions as admittedly, no record or proof to claim possession by Plaintiff or any of their family members on the Suit Property has ever been filed on record. Without Prejudice, the Plaintiff in the Plaint itself affirms that the answering defendants are owners of 353.5 sq. yds out of XXX Share i.e 475 sq.yds. It is the case of the Plaintiff that XXX share and XXX Share are jointly admeasuring. 975 sq.yds. and that as the shares of XXXX and XXXX is under joint ownership thus the Suit Property also forms part of joint ownership as they have inherited XXXX share. However, interestingly, the alleged partition has been sought only of the Suit Property which is 353.5 sq.yds and not of 975 sq.yds. Thus, even on the basis of pleadings/averment in the Plaint, the Suit deserves dismissal at the threshold on account of seeking alleged partition in part i.e the Suit Property being 353.5 sq yds instead of seeking alleged partition of 975 sq.yds being the alleged joint share of XXXX and XXXX. Therefore, it is denied that at present the un divided portion in the property measuring 353.55 sq.yds out of Khasra no. XXXX situated at Village XXXXX, Delhi-XXXX from the total property i.e 975 sq.yds is available for the purpose of partition among the parties to the suit since remaining portion of the property is in illegal and unlawful possession of other occupants. It is further denied that the aforesaid portion of 353.55 sq.yds portion shown in red colour in the site plan as Annexure-P/3. That any claim of 1/20^th undivided share in 353.55 sq. yds which comes to 17.65 sq. yds as share of the Plaintiff is legally untenable and incomprehensible. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para-4

4. That the contents of para no.4 of the captioned suit are wrong and hence denied. It is denied that the aforesaid XXXX, handicapped and unmarried, who bequeathed his share including the share in the suit property, by virtue of Will Deed dated 22.03.1956 in favour of the grandfather of the Plaintiff namely XXXX. It is submitted that the alleged will dated 22.03.1956 has neither been attached with the suit, not the contents of the same have been either stated or proved in the suit. It is submitted that without attaching the alleged will, the reliance on the same cannot be placed. Without prejudice, the answering Defendants reserve their rights to reply and plead further once the alleged will is brought on record. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para-5

5. That the contents of para no.5 of the captioned suit are wrong and denied. It is denied that in the year 1960, the grandfather of the plaintiff namely XXXXX who claimed to be an adopted son of XXXX and also the successor of XXXX by virtue of the will dated 22.03.1956 executed by XXXX in favour of XXXX. It is further denied that XXXX had filed a civil suit no. 316/60 titled as XXXX vs XXXX and Ors.” before the court of Ld. Sub-Judge Delhi for suit for possession of land of XXXX i.e. XX share of the land measuring 314 Begha and 8 Biswa of the deceased XXXX land. It is further denied that the aforesaid XXXX, grandfather of the Plaintiff, had filed an appeal vide RCA No. XXXX against the aforesaid judgement/decree dated 18.12.1961 before the Ld. ADJ, Delhi, which was partly allowed vide order dated 21.07.1962, wherein it was held that XXXXX became owner of land of XXXX by virtue of Will deed dated 22.03.1956 vide its order dated 21.07.1962. It is further denied that the two respondents namely XXXX and XXXX in the said appeal had filed a second appeal vide RCA no. XXXX against the judgement of First Appeallant Court before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. It is further denied that the Hon’ble High Court had confirmed the findings/judgement dared 21.07.1962 passed by the First Appeallant Court wherein it was proved that the said will deed dated 22.03.1956 was proved by the grandfather of the Plaintiff namely XXXXX . That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para-6:

6. That the contents of the para no. 6 of the captioned suit is wrong and hence specifically denied. It is denied that the grandfather of the Plaintiff namely XXXX was successor of XXXX by virtue of will dated 22.03.1956 executed by XXXX in favour of XXXX in respect of the properties of XXXX and the suit property is originally part of deceased XXXX and XXXX. It is submitted that the alleged will dated 22.03.1956 has neither been attached with the suit, not the contents of the same have been either stated or proved in the suit. It is submitted that without attaching the alleged will, the reliance on the same cannot be placed. Without prejudice, the answering Defendants reserve their rights to reply and plead further once the alleged will is brought on record. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para-7 and 8 :

7. That the contents of paras no. 7 & 8 of the captioned suit are admitted to the extent that the Defendant No. 1, 2, 3 have claimed to purchase the suit property from the successors of XXXX. It is denied that since no partition had taken place between XXXX and XXXX in respect of the suit property in their lifetime, therefore the Defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 are in possession of the undivided portion of the suit property. It is further denied that they have stepped in the shoe of successors of kale and hence they are in possession of the suit property as co-owners only and they cannot claim to purchase any specific portion of the suit property by virtue of their sale documents.It is submitted that devolution of title of the answering defendants emanates from XXXX. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Inder Singh pursuant to Oral Partition acquired 975 sq.yds and after the death of the XXXX, the said 975 sq.yds devolved solely upon his two (2) sons namely Late Sh. Kaley and XXXX, whereby both the sons admittedly acquired 487.5 sq. yds each, respectively. It is further submitted that both the sons had duly partitioned the property and were in separate and exclusive possession of their respective portions as admittedly, no record or proof to claim possession by Plaintiff or any of their family members on the Suit Property has ever been filed on record.That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between Late Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma [i.e the father of the Plaintiff], Basanti Devi [grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being XXXX. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of XXXX, XXXX having compromised the Suit No. XXXX with erstwhile owner - XXXX titled as - XXXX W/o XXXX and XXXX S/o XXXX Vs XXXX W/o XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC.It is denied that the Plaintiff and Defendant no. 4 to 9 are also co-owners in the suit property and therefore they are legally entitled to get their share in partition of the suit property by meets and bounds. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para-9:

8. It is denied that any such legal notice dated 21.07.23 was received by the answering defendants. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para-10:

9. In response, it is submitted that inspite of the fact that the XXXX/Defendant no.9 knew that the ownership of the Suit Property is with the answering Defendants, still the answering Defendants were not impleaded. Furthermore, construction if any had been undertaken by the answering defendants and in case of any deviation, if so pointed out by the MCD, the answering Defendants shall carry on requisite repairs. In reference to the 1^st Suit, following instances/particulars decipherable from the pleadings of the parties, which leads to unequivocal conclusion that the present Suit has been filed not only as a collusive suit but also with malafide and in order to extort money from the answering Defendants. Such instances interalia include:

-Reference to the memo of parties, address of Plaintiff i.e XXXX in the 1^st Suit and XXXX/Plaintiff in the present Suit is similar.

-Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of XXXX and XXXX is around 975 sq.yds . However, the alleged partition is sought only for around 353.5 sq. yds. The only untenable explanation offered is that rest of the portion is under illegal possession and thus alleged partition is only sought qua the Suit Property i.e 353.5 sq. yds. The aforesaid speaks volumes about the conduct and real intent/motive behind the Plaintiff and his family members.

-Even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between XXXX [i.e the father of the Plaintiff], XXXX [grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being XXXX being Suit No.XXX and the same was withdrawn by XXXXX i.e father of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, no partition or other relief as allegedly sought vide the present Suit had been preferred. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC.

Reply to para-11 & para-12:

10. That in response to the contents of para no. 11 of the captioned suit, it is submitted that the suit property is the absolute and exclusive property of the answering defendants purchased as described hereinabove and the possession of the suit property is also absolutely and exclusively with the answering Defendants. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It is further denied that the answering defendants were gaining any unlawful benefits. The Suit Property is exclusive property of the answering defendants. That the contents of para no. 12 of the captioned suit are wrong and hence specifically denied. It is denied that the Defendant No. 1 to 3 have illegally claimed to be the absolute owner of the suit property and denied the claim of the Plaintiff to be an owner of the suit property, therefore it is necessary to seek the declaration to the effect that the Plaintiff is also co-owner of the suit property along with the other co-owners. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para-13 & 14:

11. That in response to the contents of paras no.13 & 14 of the said suit, the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.That the contents of para no. 14 of the captioned suit are wrong and hence specifically denied. It is denied that there is a clear cause of action to file the present suit against the defendant especially the Defendant No.1 to 3. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has intentionally not disclosed the exact date and year when the alleged cause of action for filing the present suit arose as the present suit is hopelessly time barred. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to Para-15

12. In response to para-15, it is submitted that the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Reference is made from the averments and pleadings of the Plaintiff. Admittedly, essential paragraph in the plaint being- “when the cause of action for filing the plaint arose” is missing from the averments in the Plaint. The Suit deserves dismissal on this count alone. Even, for the sake of arguments, if such glaring illegality is over-looked and an attempt is made to decipher the cause of action from the pleadings, it is much evident that the present Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation basis the following foundational facts:

- Without Prejudice, there is express acknowledgment by the Plaintiff in the present Suit qua filing of the 1^st Suit by the Defendant no.9 i.e Plaintiff’s brother in Jan,2020. However, the present relief for declaration is being sought vide the present Suit in Aug,23 i.e after more than 3 years.That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between Late Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma [i.e the father of the Plaintiff], XXXX [grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being XXXX. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of XXXX, XXXX having compromised the Suit No. XXXX with erstwhile owner - XXXX titled as- XXXX W/o XXXX and XXXX S/o XXXX VsSmtRamwati W/o XXXXX, XXXX, XXXX and Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC. Therefore, cause of action if any had been exhausted way back in 1995/96. Thus, the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.

- The relief of partition is not maintainable as only ‘part partition’ is sought by the Plaintiff.

- Furthermore, the relief of possession has not neither been valued in the Plaint, nor any court fees paid on the same. Thus, no basis whatsoever has been made out to seek any relief of possession. In any case, the Plaintiff admittedly has not been in possession of the Suit Property for more than 12 years. Thus, even the relief of possession is not legally sustainable.

Basis, the settled jurisprudence on the said issues and the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court on the said issues, the Suit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

Reply to para-16:

13. Needs no reply.

Reply to para-17:

14. The averment is the said para is wrong as admittedly, 1^st Suit had been filed with prior knowledge, consent, and approval of the Plaintiff herein. Thus, the present Suit deserves dismissal on this count alone.

Reply to Prayer Clause:

All prayers liable to be dismissed in light of the above preliminary submissions, preliminaryobjections and response hereinabove.

DELHI DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 3

(THROUGH SPA HOLDER)

THROUGH

DATED

XXXX.

NEW DELHI – 1100**.

VERIFICATION :-

Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of January, 2024 that the contents of paras No.1 to 17 of the written statement are true and correct to the defendant’s knowledge and as per legal information received and believed to be true, further, the contents of paras a) to h) of the preliminary submission and objections are true and correct to the answering defendants’ knowledge and as per legal information received and believed to be true.

Last is the prayer to this Hon’ble Court.

DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 3

(THROUGH SPA HOLDER)

IN THE COURT OF XXXXX; LD. ADJ;

EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.

CS/XXXX.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXX : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXX & ORS. : DEFENDANTS

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 3 TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 & 2 OF CPC.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

At the outset it is respectfully submitted that, the answering defendants no.1 to 3 have filed accompanying written statement to the plaint in the above noted case which is pending before this Hon’ble Court and the answering defendants crave leave of this Hon’ble court to refer to the pleas of the answering defendants in the same as part of hereof.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

a. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE PRESENT SUIT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF SEEKING ‘PART PARTITION’ OF THE PROPERTY:

-Admitted the Plaintiff in the Plaint itself affirms that the answering defendants are owners of 353.5 sq. yds out of XXXX Share i.e 475 sq.yds. It is the case of the Plaintiff that XXXX share and XXXX Share are jointly admeasuring. 975 sq.yds. and that as the shares of XXXX and XXXXX is under joint ownership thus the Suit Property also forms part of joint ownership as they have inherited XXXX share. However, interestingly, the alleged partition has been sought only of the Suit Property which is 353.5 sq.yds and not of 975 sq.yds. Thus, even on the basis of pleadings/averment in the Plaint, the Suit deserves dismissal at the threshold on account of seeking alleged partition in part i.e the Suit Property being 353.5 sq yds instead of seeking alleged partition of975 sq.yds being the alleged joint share of XXXXX and XXXXX.

Reference is made to para-10 of the Plaint, wherein there has been a specific reference to the other connected 1^st Suit so filed by the Defendant No.9 [“the 1^st Suit”]. Admittedly, in the 1^st Suit, the answering defendants and other defendants had categorically and unequivocally enumerated the disclosure of answering defendants being the owners of the Suit Property. The answering defendants had further filed the title documents in the 1^st Suit, which explicitly entails the details of erstwhile owners as well as title documents. Thus, in spite of active knowledge pertaining to the existence of erstwhile title documents as well as erstwhile title holders, till date neither the erstwhile title documents have been challenged, nor the present title documents in favor of the answering defendants have been challenged vide the present Suit. It is further interesting to note that the erstwhile title holders/erstwhile owners of the Suit Property have also not been impleaded in the present Suit and further no relief sought against them. Thus, in light of the aforesaid narrative, it is much evident that the Suit is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties in the Suit and non-challenge to the erstwhile and present title documents in favor of the answering defendants.

c. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LIMITATION QUA ALL THE RELIEFS:

The Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Reference is made from the averments and pleadings of the Plaintiff. Admittedly, essential paragraph in the plaint being- “when the cause of action for filing the plaint arose” is missing from the averments in the Plaint. The Suit deserves dismissal on this count alone. Even, for the sake of arguments, if such glaring illegality is over-looked and an attempt is made to decipher the cause of action from the pleadings, it is much evident that the present Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation basis the following foundational facts:

- Acknowledgment by the Plaintiff in the present Suit qua filing of the 1^st Suit by the Defendant no.9 i.e Plaintiff’s brother in Jan,2020. However, the present relief for declaration is being sought vide the present Suit in Aug,23 i.e after more than 3 years. That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between XXXX [i.e the father of the Plaintiff], XXXX [grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being XXXX. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of XXXX, XXXX having compromised the Suit No. XXXX with erstwhile owner- XXXX titled as- XXXX W/o XXXX and XXXX S/o XXXX Vs XXXX W/o XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC. Therefore, cause of action if any had been exhausted way back in 1995/96. Thus, the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.

- The relief of partition is not maintainable as only ‘part partition’ is sought by the Plaintiff.

Basis, the settled jurisprudence on the said issues and the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court on the said issues, the Suit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

d. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL ON ACCOUNT BAR UNDER ORDER-2, RULE-2 AS ERSTWHILE SUIT I.E 1^ST SUIT:

e. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A PERUSAL OF 1^st SUIT FILED BY XXXX [THE DEFENDANT NO.9 SHOWS THAT THE PRESENT SUIT IS NOT ONLY A COLLUSIVE SUIT BUT IS CONTUMACIOUS ATTEMPT TO USURP THE SUIT PROPERTY.

-Reference to the memo of parties, address of Plaintiff i.e XXXX in the 1^st Suit and XXXX/Plaintiff in the present Suit is similar.

-Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of XXXX and Late XXXX is around 975 sq.yds. However, the alleged partition is sought only for around 353.5 sq. yds. The only untenable explanation offered is that rest of the portion is under illegal possession and thus alleged partition is only sought qua the Suit Property i.e 353.5 sq. yds. The aforesaid speaks volumes about the conduct and real intent/motive behind the Plaintiff and his family members.

-Even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between XXXX [i.e the father of the Plaintiff], XXXX [grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being XXXX being Suit No.XXXX and the same was withdrawn by XXXXX i.e father of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, no partition or other relief as allegedly sought vide the present Suit had been preferred. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC.

Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of XXXX and XXXX is around 975 sq.yds . However, the alleged partition is sought only for around 353.5 sq. yds and accordingly, the Suit is valued at 1,68,00,000/-. It is settled law that the Suit for partition cannot be entertained in part and thus for determining pecuniary limit, the valutation ought to be as per the complete partionable land i.e 975 sq.yds as alleged by the Plaintiff himself. If that be so, the Suit for the basis of pecuniary limit would be valued at around 5 crores which clearly disentitles this Hon’ble Court from proceeding forward. Thus, the Suit deserves dismissal on this count alone.

g. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL WITH COSTS ON ACCOUNT MATERIAL CONCEALMENT OF PREVIOUS SETTLEMENT IN SUITS WITH THE ERSTWHILE OWNERS:

That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between XXXX [i.e the father of the Plaintiff], XXXX [grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being XXXX. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of XXXX, XXXX having compromised the Suit No. XXXX with erstwhile owner- XXXX titled as- XXXX W/o XXXX and XXXX S/o XXXX Vs XXXX W/o XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC.

PARAWISE REPLY:-

1. That the contents of para No.1 of the application are a matter of record, however it is submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false and frivolous for the reason stated in the written statement. It is submitted that the contents of the written statement may be read as part and parcel of the reply to the application under reply.

2. That the contents of para No. 2 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff is having got a very good prima facie case in his favour and against the Defendants and there is every likelihood to succeed in the said case against the Defendants. The contents of the written statement may be read as a part hereof being not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

3. That the contents of para No. 3 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in the present suit to get the relief of ex-parte / ad-interim injunction in his favour. It is submitted that the contents of the written statement may be read as part and parcel of the reply to the application under reply.

4. That the contents of para No. 4 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff shall suffer with an irreparable losses and injuries, in case the present application is not allowed. It is submitted that the contents of the written statement may be read as part and parcel of the reply to the application under reply.

5. That the contents of para No. 4 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff shall have no option to file the present application against the Defendant. It is submitted that the contents of the written statement may be read as part and parcel of the reply to the application under reply.

That the contents of the prayer clause of the application are baseless, vague, wrong and hence strongly opposed. The plaintiff has no right to attachment before judgment against the answering defendants in respect of the suit property. Even the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief mentioned in the prayer clause of the present application against the answering defendants for the reason mentioned in detailed herein above.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court, may kindly be please to dismiss the present application under reply, in the interest of justice.

Pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and may pass in favour of the answering defendants, in the interest of justice.

It is prayed accordingly.

DELHI DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 3

(THROUGH SPA HOLDER)

THROUGH

DATED

XXXXX

XXXX

NEW DELHI – 1100**

IN THE COURT OF XXXX; LD. ADJ;

EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.

CS/XXXX.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXX : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXX : DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of XXXXX , aged about ___ years, S/o XXXXX R/o House No. XXX, XXXX, New Delhi-1100**, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the Power Attorney Holder of XXXX, XXXX and XXXX being the Defendants No.1 to 3 in the above case and am thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances, pursuant to the information provided to me, thereof and am competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying written statement to the plaint, have been drafted by my counsel as per my instruction and the contents of the same have been duly read over and understood by me and after fully understanding the contents of the same.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

Verified at New Delhi on ___ day of January, 2024 that the contents of above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF XXXXX; LD. ADJ;

EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.

CS/XXXX

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXX : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXX : DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of XXXX, aged about ___ years, S/o XXXX R/o House No. XXXX, XXXX, New Delhi-1100**, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the Power Attorney Holder of Defendants No.1 to 3 in the above case and am thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances, pursuant to the information provided to me, thereof and am competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying reply to the Application have been drafted by my counsel as per my instruction and the contents of the same have been duly read over and understood by me and after fully understanding the contents of the same, I hereby state that the facts therein are all true and correct to my knowledge.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

Verified at New Delhi on ___ day of January, 2024 that the contents of above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF XXXX LD. ADJ;

EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.

CS/XXXX

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXX : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXX : DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS / DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 3 UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 1 OF C.P.C. R/W SECTION 151 OF C.P.C. AND R/W SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT, FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF WRITTEN STATEMENT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-

1. That the captioned plaint has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants before this Hon’ble Court and same is pending before this Hon’ble Court for ……….2024.

2. That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the applicants / answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between XXXX [i.e the father of the Plaintiff], XXXX [grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being XXXX. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of XXXX, XXXX having compromised the Suit No. XXXX with erstwhile owner - XXXX titled as- XXXX W/o XXXX and XXXX S/o XXXX Vs XXXX W/o XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit.

3. It is submitted that the applicants / defendant no.1 to 3 have not been served the copy of the plaint and its documents, till date to the applicant. Hence, in the absence of said documents, it is not possible to prepare the written statement and same cannot be filed within three days before this Hon’ble Court.

4. It is submitted that the plaintiff was not supplied the copy of the suit along with documents despite repeated requests, therefore, applicant / defendants applied certified copy of the complete file along with documents and certified copy of the same was received. In the absence of copy of the suit and complete documents it is not possible to prepare the written statement within three days, due to which the applicant could not file the written statement as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court which was neither intentional nor deliberate, hence, the written statement is within limitation from the date of receiving of completion copy of the present suit and the same was filing before this Hon’ble Court and copy of the same supplied to the plaintiff.

5. That due to above said reason the written statement has not been filed by the defendants and delay has been caused and now the applicant / defendants is filing the present application for condone the delay in filing of the written statement and may allow the present application and written statement of the defendants may taken on record.

PRAYER:-

It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the present application and may be condoned delay in filing the written statement before this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.

It is prayed accordingly,

DELHI DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 3

(THROUGH SPA HOLDER)

THROUGH

DATED

XXXXX

IN THE COURT OF XXXXX; LD. ADJ;

EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.

CS/XXXXX

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXX : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXX : DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Sh. Prem Singh Gumber, aged about ___ years, S/o XXXXX R/o House No.XXX, XXXXX, New Delhi-1100**, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

2. I say that I have gone through the contents of the accompanying application under Order 8 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of CPC has been drafted by my counsel at my instructions and the same is correct as part of this affidavit as well, as those are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Delhi on this ___day of January, 2023 that the contents of the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to best of my knowledge and belief no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

AFFIDAVIT

DEPONENT

AFFIDAVIT

DEPONENT

AFFIDAVIT

Pages

Other Pages

Quick Contact