Before the Court of Learned Addl. Spl. Mobile Magistrate Samba.

Kuldeep Raj V/S Rajinder Paul and others

IN THE MATTER OF :- Civil Original Suit for declaration.

And

IN THE MATTER OF:- Written statement on behalf of

the defendant no.3

May it please your honour,

The answering defendant most humbly submits as under:-

PARAWISE REPLY:-

1. That the contents of the para no.1 of the suit is admitted.

2. That the contents of para no.2 of the suit is matter of record hence
need no reply.

3. That the contents of para no.3 of the suit is admitted upto the extent
that shops and a residential house has been constructed in the land
measuring 09marlas further it is pertinent to mentioned herein that
answering defendant is running a shop measuring 8ft.X15.5ft since
26/6/1979 and site plan is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure A for
the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court, whereas defendants no.2,3 and
proforma defendants and father of defendant no.1 is also in possession of
shop, whereas two rooms has been constructed on the first floor of the shop
run by the answering defendant and on the first floor of the shop of late.
Sukh Ram out of his hard earned money with permission of his
father/Bhagat Ram as well as elder brother Sukh Ram in the year 1989, but
unfortunately the answering defendant has not been allowed to shifted to
the newly constructed rooms on the two shops by the other defendants as
well as by the plaintiff also and further the answering defendant has been
forced to shifted in the year 1990 in a newly unfurnished constructed room in
w.no.12 and later on marked as H.no.18 W.no.12 Bari Brahmana by the
municipal committee Bari Brahmana and district Samba. Later on the
answering defendant allowed the plaintiff to stay in the room constructed on
the shop in the year 1990 till he cannot constructed his own house in w.no.01
further the plaintiff in the year 1996 has constructed his own house in W.no.1
i.e opposite to house no.39 Bari Brahmana and has also shifted to the newly
constructed house in the year 1996 along with his family and till today is
residing therein and with respect to mutations the answering defendant has
no knowledge further it is a matter of records neither the answering
defendant has ever saw any such document.

4. That in reply to para no.04 of the suit it is submitted that as stated

herein above that plaintiff is residing in W.no.01 opposite to H.No.39 Bari
Brahmana and with respect to connection of the Electricity of the plaintiff is
concerned is personal knowledge moreover is matter of record .

5. That the contents of para no.5 of the suit is again admitted and it is
submitted that during the last years of life, father of the answering
defendant as well as father of other defendants except no.1 and plaintiff is
concerned most of the time he remain ill due to old age.

6. That in reply to para no.6 of the suit it is submitted that answering

defendant has no knowledge about the impugned partition deed further it is
submitted that if this Hon’ble court declare the partition deed as null and
void the answering defendant have no objections.

7. That in reply to para no.7 of the suit it is submitted that the answering
defendant never said any thing as stated in this para of the suit, further the
answering defendant have no knowledge about mutation, hence further
submits that if mutation as alleged in this para, if declared as null and void
the answering defendant has no objection.

8. That in reply to para no.8 of the suit, it is submitted that if this Hon’ble
court declare the impugned deed as null and void again the answering
defendant has no objection, it is pertinent to mentioned herein that the
answering defendant is in possession of the shop measuring 8ft X 15.5ft
since 26.6.1979 and now at present the plaintiff is residing in W.no.01 and
rest of the para is relate to personal knowledge of the plaintiff and is directed
to proof of the same.

9. In reply to para no.09 of the suit it is submitted that the answering

defendant have no knowledge about the impugned deed hence question of
request does not arise, further it is again reiterated that if the Hon’ble court
declare the deed as null and void the answering defendant have no
objection.

10. That in reply to para no.10 of the suit it is submitted that although it is
correct that plaintiff has equal right in the property of his father/ late Bhagat
Ram like other sons further it is submitted that the answering defendant
never dispute his share or right in the suit property but the answering
defendant has constructed rooms on the first floor of the shops out his
owned hard earned money hence the reply.

11. That in reply to para no.11 and 12 of the suit it is submitted that the
answering defendant have no knowledge as alleged in this para further in
belongs to personal knowledge of the plaintiff further it is a routine matter
for making a ground to file the suit.

12. That in reply to para no.13 and 14 of the suit, it is submitted that
alleged paras are again a matter of routine in order to make grounds for
filing the suit, moreover there is no emergency neither there is any
irreparable loss hence the reply.

13. That in reply to the contents of para no. 15 of the suit, it is submitted
that the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action against the
answering defendant. Moreover the residence of the parties and suit
property is not denied. Further question of the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble
Court is legal hence no needs to reply.

14. That in reply to para no.16 of the suit it is submitted that no requisite
court fee has been affixed with the plaint hence on this count the suit
deserved to be dismissed .

15. That the averments made in para no.17 of the suit again personal
knowledge to the plaintiff which needs to the proof by the plaintiff as such,
need no reply and also a false affidavit has been sworn by the plaintiff.

An affidavit in support of written statement is enclosed

herewith.

PRAYER:-
 It is therefore humbly submitted that the keeping in view of
the above mentioned submissions made herein above, the suit of the plaintiff
may kindly be dismissed along with costs of Rs.20,000/ in the interest of
justice.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit and appropriate in the
circumstances of the case be also passed.

Defendant no.3

Through counsel

Ajay Singh Charak

(advocate)

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Samba today this--------- day September 2024 that the

averment made in the parawise reply 01 to are true and correct and rest of
the paras are believed to be true on the basis of information received today
from my counsel.

Defendant no.3