IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH. AVIRAL SHUKLA » CIVIL JUDGE DISTRICT SOUTH EAST , SAKET COURT NEW DELHI Civil Suit No. 932 OF 2020 IN THE MATTER OF:- Mahavir Singh & others Versus Hardyal Singh & others N.D.O.H. : 5/10/2021 L.D.O.H.: 5 /8/2021 Index “SL | Particulars” No "| Pages | Court Fee (1, | REPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE ; AL PLAINTIFFS TO THE WRITTEN . je STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS. | )6 [_ a en Bey waavree ag erate tne PHOS OT Qrsaar— ARVIND SINGH & COMPANY Counsel for the Plaintiffs Chamber No.767, Saket Court New Delhi-110017 Mob: 9811056275 Whats app No.:9911421570 Dated : 4.8.2021 Email ID: arvindsinghS6275@gmail.com THROUGH New Delhi© IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH. AVIRAL SHUKLA , CIVIL JUDGE DISTRICT SOUTH EAST , SAKET COURT NEW DELHI Civil Suit No. 932 OF 2020 IN THE MATTER OF:- Mahavir Singh & others Versus Hardyal Singh & others N.D.O.H. : 5/10/2021 L.D.O.H.: 5 /8/2021 REPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS. Most respectfully showeth: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: A, That the contents of para no. A of the preliminary objections of written statement are wrong and denied that the present suit for permanent injunction filed by the Plaintiffs is not maintainable . It is also wrong and denied that the plaintiffs are not in physical possession of the suit land being khasra No. 816 situated in village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi. It is submitted that defendants have already admitted the Khatauni and Girdhabri in respect to Khasra No. 816 situated in village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi during the trial woof the Suit No. 91/2017 that the plaintiff are the recorded owner of the suit property and has the possession over the suit property . B. That the contents of para no. B of the preliminary objections of written statement are admitted up to the extent that a suit bearing No. 91/2017 is pending in the court of CJ-0l(S-E), Saket Court, New Delhi filed by defendants . But it is wrong and denied that the said suit have been filed by the defendants on the ground of adverse possession. It is submitted that defendant has filed the said suit only for permanent injunction . ‘That it is wrong and denied that during the pendency of the above said suit, the present case for permanent injunction in respect of khasra No. 816, village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi is not maintainable. C. That the contents of para no. C of the preliminary objections of written statement are wrong and denied that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In the suit No. 91/2017 beside the 4 defendants impleaded herein, the others have not been arrayed herein as necessary party. REPLICATION TO THE PARAWISE REPLY: 1, That the contents of Para No. 1 of the para-wise reply of written statement is a matter of record and needs no reply.© 2. That the contents of Para No.2 of the para-wise reply of written statement are also matter of record and needs no reply. However it is submitted that the plaintiffs are recorded owners of the suit property. The name of plaintiffs has been entered into the revenue record /khatauni after the death of their father. The entry into the revenue record were never challenged at any point of time by the defendants or their father. 3. That contents of para No.3 of the para-wise reply of written statement filed by defendants is also matter of record and needs no reply. 4. That the contents of Para No. 4 of the para-wise reply of written statement filed by defendants are not correct as stated. It is denied that the plaintiffs are not recorded owners of the land comprised in khasra No. 816, Village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi. It is also wrong and denied that defendants along-with their brothers have physical and cultivatory possession over the suit property for the last more than 25 years. It is wrong that answering defendant acquired their right to the land in question by virtue of adverse possession . It is denied that the plaintiffs have not been making payment to irrigation department of Delhi Government for last more than 40 years as alleged. The copies of payment receipts referred to in the para under reply are the receipts for the subsequent period continues to® be in the name of the predecessor of the defendants. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are recorded owners of the land comprised in Kkhasra No. 816, Village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi . The Khatauni, Girdhawari having the name of plaintiffs and they has been in actual physical and cultivatory possession. . That the contents of the para No.5 of the para wise reply of the written statement are wrong and denied except to those which are matter of record. The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . It is submitted that the defendants has nothing to do with the suit land bearing khasra No. 816 of village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi. It is submitted that in the revenue record the predecessor of the plaintiffs are shown as owner as alleged. It is respectfully submitted that the entries made in the revenue record are in the name of the plaintiffs and their predecessors and the said suit property is in the possession of plaintiffs. . That the contents of Para No. 6 of the parawise reply of written statement are not correct as stated hence denied. The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . That the contents of Para No. 7 of the para wise reply of© written statement is a matter of record and needs no reply. 8. That the contents of para No. 8 of the para wise reply of written statement is a matter of record and needs no reply. 9. That the contents of Para No. 9 of the para wise reply of written statement are matter of record and needs no reply. 10. That the contents of Para No. 10 of the para wise reply of written statement are matter of record and needs no reply. 11. That the contents of Para No. 11 of the para wise reply of written statement are matter of record hence need no reply . It is correct that the Hardyal Singh and others did not raise the plea of adverse possession in suit No. 91/2017. Hardyal Singh and others moved an application seeking amendment of the plaint in suit no. 91/2017 just to linger on the said matter - Itis pertinent to mentioned here that the agriculture khasra No. 816 belong to the plaintiffs as per revenue record . The entries in land in question i. revenue record in respect to KhasraNo.816 were never challenged in any court by the defendants The name of the father of the plaintiffs was entered into the revenue records after the death of the grandfather of the plaintiffs. The land in question is the ancestral property of _ the plaintiffs. 12. That in reply of the contents of para No. 12 of the of® written statement it is stated that it is wrong and denied that defendants have been retaining the actual physical and cultivatory possession of the land being khasra No. 816, village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi for the last more than 25 years . It is humbly submitted that the suit property in. question is the ancestral property of __ the plaintiffs and they are the exclusive owner of the property in question . 13. That the contents of the para No.13 of the para wise reply of the written statement are wrong and denied except to those which are matter of record. It is submitted that interim relief was though not granted to the present defendants in suit No. 91/2017 but the suit is pending for further adjudication. It is submitted that the present defendants started adopting illegal ways to grab the land in question in connivance with local hooligans and unsocial elements etc. as alleged. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property since birth . It is also submitted that Plaintiffs are also doing farming on the said land . 14. That the contents of para No. 14 of the para wise reply of written statement are wrong and denied. The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . It is vehemently denied that on 03.06.2020 in the afternoon® plaintiff No. 5 Sh. Karambir Singh alongwith one Sh. Joginder Singh Bhati son of Late Jai Singh came to the suit land and tried to remove the barbed wire fencing surrounding the land in khasra No. 816 when they were apprehended by defendant No. 2 Sh. Pradeep Kumar and defendant No. 3 Sh. Hardeep Kumar. It is also denied that the answering defendants are in continuous possession of the land . It is further stated _— that the agriculture land in question i.e. khasra No. 816 belong to the plaintiffs as per revenue records and they have the possession of the same. The entries in revenue record in respect to name of the plaintiffs in | Khasra No.816 were never challenged in any court of Law. It is also denied for the want of knowledge that A written report bearing C/No. 204/2020 was filed on 04.06.2020 at P.S, Kalindi Kunj by Sh. Pradeep Kumar defendant No. 2 . It is also denied that The plaintiffs after having come to know of the report made on 04.06.2020 made a counter report on 05.06.2020 referred to herein as C/No. 206/514/2020. It is a matter of record that the local police filed cross kalandra against each other under section 107/150 Cr.P.C. before SEM (District S-E) Amar Colony New Delhi to prevent any breach of peace. It is denied that the local police has no authority to call for any document from the parties to substantiate their respective claim on the land. The policeofficial have every right to maintain the Law and order . 15. That the contents of Para No. 15 of the para wise reply are wrong and denied . The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . 16, That the contents of Para No. 16 of the para wise reply of written statement are wrong and denied. The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . It is emphatically denied that the defendants have been in cultivatory possession. of the land and have been growing crop /vegetables and have been harvesting the same regularly for the last more than 25 years and take away the same to their home. It is hereby submitted that the suit land belongs to the plaintiffs as per revenue records and they have the possession of the same. The name of the father of the plaintiff was entered into the revenue record after the death of the grandfather of plaintiffs. The land in question is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. It is also submitted that the defendants No. 1 to 3 committed offence of tress-passing in cutting down the crops own by the plaintiffs in the land bearing khasra No. 816. 17. That the contents of Para No. 17 of the para wise reply of written statement are wrong and denied and are partly amatter of record and needs no reply. It is a matter of record that Sh. Jagbir Singh i.e. plaintiff No. 3 made a police complaint against the defendants . It is wrong and denied that this confirms the cultivatory possession of the defendants and their right to harvest the crop in the land in khasra No. 816. It is wrong and denied that pursuant to the complaint made by the plaintiff a response was sent to DCP(South-East) by the defendant No. 2 stating that the crop was harvested by them . It is wrong and denied that The crop of Jwar was grown by the defendants. It is submitted that the possession of the suit property lies with the plaintiffs as the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and as such they are using the suit property for cultivation. 18. That the contents of Para No. 18 of the para wise reply of written statement are incorrect and misleading hence denied. The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . 19. That the contents of Para No. 19 of the para wise reply of written statement are wrong and incorrect hence denied. The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . It is hereby submitted that the suit land ie. khasra No. 816 belongs tothe plaintiffs as per revenue records and they have the possession of the same .Theentries in revenue record in respect to name of the plaintiffs in Khasra No.816 were never challenged before any court of Law. The land in question is the ancestral Property of the plaintiffs. It is submitted plaintiffs have possession over the suit property , therefore their name has been recorded in to the Girdhawari of the suit property which were never challenged in any court of law at any point of time . 20. That the contents of Para No. 20 of the para wise reply of written statement are incorrect , misleading hence. denied. The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . It is also wrong and denied that the defendants are law abiding citizens. It is submitted that many times defendants came to the suit property with unsocial elements to create hindrance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants have came to the suit property Several times and have spoiled the crops of the plaintiffs to dispossess the plaintiffs from their rights over the suit property. 21. That the contents of para no 21 of the para wise reply of written statement are incorrect and misleading hence denied. The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint® are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct. 22. That the contents of Para No. 22 of the para wise reply of written statement are wrong and denied and are partly a matter of record. The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct. It is wrong and denied that the plaintiffs tried to dispossess the defendants by using the local police to put pressure upon the defendants while in actual the plaintiffs themselves have the possession over the suit property. It is also denied that the plaintiffs have also roped in one Sh. Joginder Bhati to use his money /muscle power to dispossess the defendants from the suit property without due process of law but due to vigilant and prompt response from the side of defendants, the plaintiffs could not achieve their goal. The local police time to time has warned the defendants not to take law in their own hands and to proceed with the cases pending before court. It is a matter of record and hence need no reply that an Appropriate action to prevent any breach of peace has already been taken. On 29.11.2020 two persons each from both sides were arrested under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and released on bail on furnishing bail bond to maintain peace . It is also wrong and incorrect that one person namely Sh. Joginder Bhati has been instigating the plaintiff to fight physically with the defendants could escape from the© clutches of the police. It is denied that Joginder Bhati alongwith the plaintiffs went to the field and could manage to destroy a portion of the cultivated field and set on fire the existing Jhuggi. It is denied that A report has already been filed by the defendant with regard to the said incident and an FIR is likely to be registered against the culprits. 23. That the contents of Para No. 23 of the para wise reply of written statement are wrong, false and denied The contents of the corresponding para of the. plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . It is wrong and denied that The defendants and their brothers are in possession of khasra No. 816. It is also submitted that defendants no. 1 to 4 and their associates are threatening the plaintiffs and their family members continuously. It is submitted that the suit property bearing khasra no. 816 is the ancestral property’ of the plaintiffs and they are still in physical and cultivatory possession of the said land. 24. That the contents of Para No. 24 of the para wise reply are wrong and denied. The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . It is submitted that the plaintiffs have lodged the complaint at local police to take some coercive action against the defendants and their workmen for their illegal acts .©) 25. That the contents of Para No. 25 of the Para wise reply of written statement are incorrect and hence denied The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . It is submitted that many times defendants with their unsocial elements forcibly enters the suit Property and destroy the crops. In this regard, plaintiffs have given complaints to the concerned police station several times where the suit property is situated. 26. That the contents of Para No. 26 of the para wise reply of written statement are wrong and denied . The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . It is wrong and denied that defendants and their brothers have already filed a suit claiming adverse possession in the land bearing khasra No. 816 village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi for more than 25 years . 27. That the contents of Para No. 27 of the para wise reply of written statement are wrong and denied. The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . It is denied that the defendants and their brothers have the physical possession of the said land . It is humbly submitted that the plaintiffs are in lawful occupation, physical possession and user of land in khasra No. 816 situated in village Madanpur‘D Khadar, New Delhi. 28. That the contents of Para No. 28 of the para wise reply of written statement are wrong and denied . The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . 29. That the contents of para no 29 of the para wise reply of written statement are incorrect hence denied. The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . 30. That the contents of Para no. 30 of the para wise reply of written statement are matter of record and needs no reply. 31. That the contents of Para No. 31 of the of written statement is wrong and denied. The contents of the corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated as true and correct . It is denied that The suit is not valued Properly for the purpose of jurisdiction and proper court fee . That the contents of the prayer clause of the written statement are baseless and hence it is submitted that the defendants are not entitled for any relief as sought for. In the facts and circumstances as mentioned in the plaint and this replication the plaintiffs prays to this Hon'ble court to reject the defence of the defendants .® It is prayed to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs by allowing the relief sought in the plaint. - sed UE aaah ME BalbinSincfy shan Sea ee wine PLAINTIFFS THROUGH AK adh = Arvind Singh & Vipin Tiwari (Advocate for Plaintiffs) Ch.No. 767, Saket court, New Delhi-91 Date: q\2|20\ M:9911421870 Place: NEW DEUNL VERIFICATION: Verified at New Delhi on this day of ..... 2021, that the contents of this replication are true and correct to my best of my knowledge and belief which is based on record maintained by the plaintiff in its oa to day dealing. Bolbiy Sufr TOAT nll ure Fe ras rar Se SUN anti ian ce, ay PiaintitsIN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SHRI AVIRAL SHUKLA, CIVIL JUDGE,SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI CIVIL SUIT No. 932/2020 IN THE MATTER OF: Mahavir Singh & Others Versus Hardyal Singh & Others AFFIDAVIT 1, Mahavir Singh Aged About 62 years S/O late Sh. Uday Singh R/O- Village Madanpur Khadar, Chauhan Mohalla, Near Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Delhi-110076, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That I am the Plaintiff/applicant No.1 in the above noted case and am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, hence I am competent to swear the present affidavit. 2, That I have filed the accompanying replication to the WS filed by defendants and the same has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions, I have gone through the contents of the same and the same are egplained in vernacular and are true and correct to the best of 8h fait. * oy ate Sgr S RIFICATION: Aus wi Verified at Delhi on this __ da &f' 2021, that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing material a CERTIFIED THAT Tw 2 DEPON! HE] are. DA arowiaS g we cra yl ,) DEPONENT Re. a4 \arean a Wess. as eolamnty oe 6 MO Satna " are mu ¢ read as part and parcel srerahhe fhe : DEPONENT App. BY caves 7008202) has been concealed therefrom. ee r ee aes nin Tower wa anys Conth Commissionet Now Desny