IN THE COURT OF LD.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Bishan Singh
S/O Late Sh. Chandagi Ram
R/O House No.108, Dera Village,
New Delhi … Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Sunita @ Soni
W/o Late Sh. Ajeet Singh
D/o Sh. Prakash
R/O House No.108, Dera Village,
New Delhi
2. Prakash
R/O House No………………. … Defendants
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
THE PLAINTIFF MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AS UNDER:
1. That the plaintiff is the resident of the aforesaid address and
residing with his family. That the defendant no.1 is the widow of
late Sh. Ajeet Singh, and the defendant no.2 is the father of the
defendant no.1, defendant is residing in the portion of House
No.108, Village Dera, New Delhi. It is pertinent to mention herein
that Sh. Ajeet Singh was the nephew of the plaintiff.
2. That Late Sh. Chandagi Ram, father of the plaintiff has purchased
House No. 108, Dera Village, New Delhi, admeasuring 450 Sq.yds.
(hereinafter referred as suit property) from Durga in the year 1970
and constructed the same for residential purpose and then started
residing with his family. It is pertinent to mentioned herein that late
father of plaintiff has bequeathed the suit property in favour of his
wife Smt. Papai vide the WiLL executed in favour of Smt. Papai
(mother of plaintiff) in the year 1988. Father of plaintiff was
demised on 11.07.1989 and thereafter the mother of plaintiff
became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property
as no one in the family challenged bequeath in any manner.
3. That the suit property of the plaintiff are more specifically described
and shown in the rought sketch plan in green colour, which is
bounded as under:
East : Other’s Property
West : Other’s Property
North : Road
South : Other’s Property
The rought site plan of the suit property is annexed herewith as
Annexure P-1.
4. That after the death of father of plaintiff, mother of the plaintiff was
the absolute owner of House No. 108, Dera Village, New Delhi,
admeasuring 450 Sq.yds. and she bequeath the suit property in
favour of the plaintiff vide the registered WiLL dated 18.05.2011,
duly registered on 23.05.2011 in the office of Sub-Registrar V, New
Delhi vide document no. 2436 in Addl. Book No. 3, Volume
No…….., page no.86 to 89. True copy of the Will registered on
23.05.2011 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-2.
5. That mother of plaintiff was demised on 01.05.2013 and since then
the plaintiff is the sole owner and in possession of the suit property.
It is pertinent to mention herein that the plaintiff has not evicted
any family member from the suit property and acted for the welfare
of the entire family and also allowed the defendant no.1 to reside in
the suit property as shown in the green colour in the rough sketch
plan.
6. That defendant no.2 was occasionally visited the defendant no.2
when the husband of the defendant no.1 was alive but after death
of the husband of the defendant no.1, defendant no.2 frequently
started visiting the defendant no.1. Plaintiff has noticed that as and
when the defendant no.2 visited the defendant no.1, the defendant
no.1 started creating troubles to the plaintiff and told the other
family members that she has right in the suit property after the
death of the mother of the plaintiff.
7. That thereafter the plaintiff has informed all the family members
that his mother Smt. Papai has bequeathed the entire suit property
including the portion/plot wherein the defendant no.1 is residing,
vide the WiLL registered on 23.05.2011.
8. That the defendant no.1 has called the defendant no.2 who talked
to the plaintiff and then the plaintiff has also informed that the
entire property is bequeathed by his mother in the name of plaintiff
and also assured the father of the plaintiff that the defendant shall
not be evicted from the house as she is the member of the family.
Then the defendant no.1 asked the plaintiff for transfer of the suit
property in the name of the defendant no.1 upto the extent wherein
she is residing, but the plaintiff refused to transfer the same.
9. That on ………….. when the plaintiff returned home found some
local property dealers in the suit property and on enquiry it was
disclosed that they come at the suit property for visit as the
defendant no.1 shown her willingness to sale the suit property then
the plaintiff informed them that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the
suit property and no one has any right to sale, transfer or part with
possession except the plaintiff and then he also informed that the
suit property is not for sale. Then the plaintiff also informed the
defendant no.1 do not repeat any such act in future as he is the
sole owner of the suit property.
10. That on the next day the defendant no.2 visited at the house of the
plaintiff along with the defendant no.1 and asked for the partition of
the suit property and handing over of the due share to the
defendant no.1 and also extended threats that in case her
daughter’s share is not given then she shall sold her portion to the
prospective purchasers of property dealers of his choice.
11. That on……….. the plaintiff found that the local property dealers
frequently visited the suit property and inspected the suit property
and also inquiring from the neighbors regarding the status of the
suit property for purchase then the plaintiff also informed that he is
the sole owner of the suit property and the same is not for sale. It is
pertinent to mention herein that the plaintiff is facing great problem
and harassment as such everyday one or two property dealers are
visiting at the suit property and making enquiry for purchase of the
suit property.
12. That from the conduct of the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 it
seems that they are adamant to sale the suit property without the
consent of the plaintiff and trying to cause wrongful loss to the
plaintiff and wrongful gain for themselves by selling the suit
property. The defendant no.2 is supporting the defendant no.1 and
defendant no.1 at the instigation of the defendant no.2 is trying to
dispose of the suit property due the greed.
13. That the defendants are acting in collusion with each other and
making every possible effort to sale the suit property, which belongs
to the plaintiff. No one has any right, title and interest in the suit
property except the plaintiff. That the defendants knowingly and
intentionally trying to dispose of the suit property of the plaintiff
and trying to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff and wrongful gain
to themselves from their conduct, therefore, they are required to be
restrained from doing so.
14. That the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendant on the day when the defendants no.1 in collusion
with the defendant no.2 made efforts to sale the suit property of the
plaintiff and furthermore the cause of action arose on each and
every day when the property dealers visited at the suit property and
since then the cause of action is continuous and subsisting till
date.
15. That the suit property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction
of this Hon’ble Court therefore, this Hon’ble Court has the
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and adjudicate
the same.
16. That the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and
jurisdiction for the relief of permanent injunction is fixed at
Rs.130/- and a court fee of Rs.13 is payable which is affixed on the
plaint. It is also submitted herein that in case the court fee is found
deficient then the plaintiff shall pay the same as and when this
Hon’ble court directed to pay the same.
P R A Y E R:
Under the circumstances, it is therefore, most humbly and respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants, their
agents, associates, workmen, employees or any other person(s)
claiming through or under them or acting for and/or on their behalf
from selling and parting with possession of the suit property i.e.
House No. 108, Dera Village, New Delhi as shown green in the
rough site plan.
b) Allow a cost of the proceeding in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendant;
c) Pass such other or further order(s), which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.
PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
VIKRAM SINGH & VINIT GUPTA.
(ADVOCATES)
LAWYER’S CH.NO.514,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
NEW DELHI – 110017.
NEW DELHI
DATE:
VERIFICAATION
Verified at Delhi on this day of July, 2014 that the contents of
para no.1 to para…. Of the suit are true and correct to my knowledge
and belief and there is no misrepresentation in it and those of para…..to
para……are true and correct on the basis of legal advice received by me
as the same are read over to me in vernacular i.e. Hindi and last para is
prayer clause to this Hon’ble Court.
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Bishan Singh … Plaintiff
VERSUS
Smt.Sunita @Soni & Anr. … Defendants
AFFDAVIT
I, Bishan Singh S/O Late Sh. Chandagi Ram R/O House No.108, Dera
Village, New Delhi, aged about…..Years, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:
1. That the deponent is the plaintiff in the aforesaid case and well
conversant with the facts and circumstances of present case and as
such competent of swear the present affidavit.
2. That the accompanying suit for permanent injunction injunction
along with consequential relief is drafted by my counsel upon &
under my instructions which are read over to me in vernacular
language i.e. Hindi and contents thereof are true and correct to best
of my knowledge & belief.
Deponent
Verification:
Verified at New Delhi On this day of July, 2014 that the
contents of above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and
belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Deponent
IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
I.A.No………….of 2014
in
CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Sh. Bishan Singh … Plaintiff
VERSUS
Smt.Sunita @Soni & Anr. … Defendants
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER-XXXIX, RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH S-151
CPC FOR AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE STAY/ TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION/STATUS QUO.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the present application is being filed by the plaintiff under
order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 for Ad-Interim ex-parte temporary
injunction/ stay/ status quo with the accompanying suit and the
contents of the suit may kindly be treated as part and partial to this
application also, which are not repeated herewith for the sake of
brevity.
2. That the local property dealer is frequently visiting the suit property
for inspection of the same just to purchase the same from the
defendant no.1. That the defendants in collusion with each other
are trying to sale the suit property which is not belongs to them
therefore, the defendants are required to be restrained from sale of
the suit property of the plaintiff.
3. That balance of convenience is lies in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants and there is every possibility of the plaintiff
to succeed in the present suit.
4. That the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and damages which
cannot be compensated in terms of money in case the Ad-Interim
Ex-Parte Injunction/Stay/Status Quo is not granted to the
plaintiff/applicant.
PRAYER
Under the circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed
that this Hon’ble Court, may graciously be pleased to :
a) Pass Ad-interim ex-parte temporary stay/ injunction/status
quo order restraining the defendants their agents,
employees, attorneys & representatives from selling and
parting with possession of the suit property i.e. House
No.108, Dera Village, New Delhi, during the pendency of the
present suit and/or;
b) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the
case in the interest of justice.
PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
VIKRAM SINGH & VINIT GUPTA.
(ADVOCATES)
LAWYER’S CH.NO.514,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
NEW DELHI – 110017.
NEW DELHI
DATE:
IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
I.A.No………….of 2014
in
CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Sh. Bishan Singh … Plaintiff
VERSUS
Smt.Sunita @Soni & Anr. … Defendants
AFFDAVIT
I, Bishan Singh S/O Late Sh. Chandagi Ram R/O House No.108, Dera
Village, New Delhi, aged about…..Years, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:
1. That the deponent is the plaintiff and well conversant with the facts
and circumstances of present case and as such competent of swear
the present affidavit.
2. That the accompanying application under Order 39, Rule-1 & 2
CPC for ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction is drafted by my
counsel upon & under my instructions which are read over to me
in vernacular language and contents thereof are true and correct to
my knowledge & belief.
Deponent
Verification:
Verified at New Delhi On this day of July, 2014 that the
contents of above affidavit are true and correct to best of my knowledge
and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Deponent
IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Sh. Bishan Singh … Plaintiff
VERSUS
Smt.Sunita @Soni & Anr. … Defendants
LIST OF RELIANCE
1. Original of documents, photocopies which have already been
placed on record.
2. Original of the letters, receipts, Notices, photocopies which have
already been placed on record.
3. Any other documents with the permission of this Hon’ble as may
be found during the pendency of present suit.
PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
VIKRAM SINGH & VINIT GUPTA.
(ADVOCATES)
LAWYER’S CH.NO.514,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
NEW DELHI – 110017.
NEW DELHI
DATE:
IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Sh. Bishan Singh … Plaintiff
VERSUS
Smt.Sunita @Soni & Anr. … Defendants
INDEX
Sr.No. Particulars C.fee .Page.No.
1. Memo of parties
2. Suit for Permanent Injunction with affidavit.
3. Application u/o-39, rule 1& 2 read with s-
151 CPC, for Ad-Interim Ex-party temporary
injunction/Stay/ status quo with affidavit.
4. List of reliance
5. List of documents alongwith documents.
6. Vakalatnama
7. Duplicate copy of suit.
PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
VIKRAM SINGH & VINIT GUPTA.
(ADVOCATES)
LAWYER’S CH.NO.514,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
NEW DELHI – 110017.
NEW DELHI
DATE:
IN THE COURT OF Ld. CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014
IN THE MATTER OF: -
SMT.MANJU DEVI … PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SH. AMIT KUMAR & ORS. … DEFENDANTS
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
S.NO. DETAILS PAGES
1. Annexure P-1. The rought site plan of the
suit property.
2. Annexure P-2. Will executed by the father of
the plaintiff.
3. Annexure P-3. True copy of registered Will
dated 23.05.2011 executed in favour of
plaintiff.
ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS WITH THE
PERMISSION OF THIS HON”BLE COURT
PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
VIKRAM SINGH & VINIT GUPTA.
(ADVOCATES)
LAWYER’S CH.NO.514,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
NEW DELHI – 110017.
NEW DELHI
DATE:
IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Sh. Bishan Singh … Plaintiff
VERSUS
Smt.Sunita @Soni & Anr. … Defendants
MEMO OF PARTIES
Sh. Bishan Singh
S/O Late Sh. Chandagi Ram
R/O House No.108, Dera Village,
New Delhi … Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Sunita @ Soni
W/o Late Sh. Ajeet Singh
D/o Sh. Prakash
R/O House No.108, Dera Village,
New Delhi
2. Prakash
R/O House No.108, Dera Village,
New Delhi … Defendants
(All the summons, notices orders etc. in connection with the above suit be
sent to me at the address given above.
In case of any change in address the same shall be communicated you
with full particulars and details.)
PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
VIKRAM SINGH & VINIT GUPTA.
(ADVOCATES)
LAWYER’S CH.NO.514,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
NEW DELHI – 110017.
NEW DELHI
DATE:
