WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.

1 UNDER ORDER VIII

4. Without admitting the correctness of contents and claims of the plaintiff averred in the
plaint, without prejudice to the right and defense of this defendant No.1, this defendant No.1
humbly submits that, the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff has no cause of action to
file the present suit and the pleaded cause of action is created for the purpose of the suit. The
plaintiff is never in joint possession, and the plaintiff never had any joint meals with the
defendant No.1, and there is no existence of any joint family as averred by the plaintiff, and
thus the suit for partition and separate possession is neither maintainable in law nor on facts
of the case, hence the same is deserves to be dismissed.

5. In reply to para 1 and 2 of the plaint, which needs not give any specific reply as they
pertains to the descriptive particulars of the parties.

6. In reply to 3 of the plaint, this defendant No.1 humbly submits that, the plaintiff never
maintained any relationship with the defendant No.1 and his family at any point of time, and
she never in the joint roof and joint meals with the defendant No.1 and his family, and there
is no existence of any joint with the defendant No.1. This defendant No.1 is not aware about
the alleged marriage of the plaintiff ought to have been held on 6-12-2006. It is false and
incorrect to avert that the defendants No.2 and 3 are the tenants of the Item No.5 and 6 of the
plaint schedule property and in occupation of the same, therefore denied and the plaintiff is
put to strict legal proof of the same. The defendant No.2 is tenant of Smt. Gurram
Amruthamma, mother of the defendant No.1, who is the owner of the Item No.5 of the suit
schedule property, which is her exclusive property. The Item No.6 of the schedule property
mentioned in the plaint schedule is no way concerned with the defendant No.1 and his family.

7.In reply to para 4 of the plaint, it is humbly submit that, since the date of birth of the
plaintiff she has been with her mother and she never shown any interest to claim the status of
daughter of this defendant No.1 and she never resided with the defendant No.1 and his family
as a joint family member.
8.In reply to para 5 of the plaint, the allegations, averments made therein are nothing but
bundles of falsehood, concoction therefore denied by this defendant No.1, and the plaintiff is
put to strict legal proof of the same. As per the allegations leveled by the plaintiff's mother in
criminal case lodged against this defendant No.1 vide FIR No.51/2007 filed under Section
498-A, and 494 of IPC, and Sec.3& 4 of DP Act which was ended in compromise on 3-6-
2008 by receiving an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant No.1 instead of the lands
which were given by father of the defendant No.1 Sri. Gurram Pratap Ready, before the
Honourable LOK Adalath, Warangal vide FLSA No.964/2007.

9. In the complaint lodged before the P.S. Rayaparthy, she averted in the said Statement
dt.11-6-2007 that, 20 years prior to the said date her husband married one Smt.Laxmi
Narsimha Reddy and residing at Mancherial, Adilabad district and she further confirmed that,
the Laxmi name was recorded in service register as his nominee and legal heir, successor to
the defendant No, 1, which would itself falsify the bald allegations leveled by the plaintiff
against the defendant No.1 that there is a concubine to the defendant No.1.

10.It is humbly submitted that, as per the plaint averments, the plaintiff got married in the
year 2006 with one Harmender, and till the date of marriage, the plaintiff and her mother
lived together far from the defendant No.1 for the past 26 years.

11.As the plaintiff had taken away all the funds with the plaintiff's mother and married one
Harmender against the will of her mother and started living with her husband. After this
incident, the plaintiff's mother in order to extract more funds from this defendant No.1 lodged
a complaint before Police, Rayaparthy and received Rs.5,00,000/- towards her full and final
settlement.

12.It is humbly submitted that, after the marriage of the plaintiff, the plaintiff collecting the
strength of her husband and men and anti social elements tried to interfere and cause
disturbance to the peaceful possession and enjoyment properties of the father of the defendant
No.1', and as such the defendant No.1' herein along with his father have filed a suit in O.S.
No.74 of 2011 seeking the relief of Declaration of title, and ownership on the file of the
Honourable Senior Civil Judge Mahabubad against the plaintiff's mother, as the mother of the
plaintiff created the document as if she got the properties from her in law. This defendant
No.1 is herewith submitting the plaint in the above refereed suit along for the kind perusal of
the Honourable Court, and which may please be read as part and parcel of this written
statement. The referred documents are in the file of OS No.74/2011, as such the same will be
filed during the course of trial in this suit.

But after considering the facts and circumstances the RDO, Mahabubabad after denovo
enquiry cancelled the pattedar pass book issued infavour of Srilatha and confirmed the
physical possession and enjoyment of this defendant No.1 and Smt.Laxmi Narsimha Reddy,
who got the property under the registered document No.3966/2011 dt.30-5-2011, and Doct.
No.4639/2011, dt. 30-5-2011 and in receipt of the entire possession she applied for issuance
of Pattedar Pass Book and Title deeds of entire his property as heis possession entire
properties as he is having no confidence and belief on this defendant No.1, and taking into the
consideration of Smt. Laxmi Narsimha Reddy entire properties have been gifted to her and
the said properties: are situated in Survey No.315 to the extent of Ac.1-02¼ guntas, vide
Doct. No.3966/2011, and vide Doct.No. 4639/2011 the properties are in Survey No.134/A2 to
the extent of Ac. 0-37 guntas, in S.No. 148/A to the extent of Ac.0-27 ¼ guntas. In S.No.
148/B to an extent of Ac. 1-14 ½ guntas, in S.No.149 to an extent of Ac.3-29 ½ guntas and in
S. No.150 to an extent of Ac. 1-12 ¾ guntas in total Ac.8-01 guntas and Ac.1-02 ¼ guntas are
in possession and enjoyment of Smt.Laxmi NarsimhaReddy.This defendant is not possessing
any nature of immovable properties in his name or custody.

13.In reply to para 6 of the plaint, the allegations and averments made therein are totally
incorrect, therefore this defendant No.1 specifically deny the same in toto and the plaintiff
has to stand for the strict legal proof of the same. The contents were self created one for the
purpose of filing the present suit with ill motive with unlawful claim without any lawful right
existing prior to filing and as on the date of filing of the suit.

14.In reply to para 7 of the plaint, the allegations and averments made therein are totally
incorrect, therefore this defendant No.1 specifically deny the same in toto and the plaintiff
has to stand for the strict legal proof of the same. It is humbly submitted that, when the
mother of the plaintiff failed to achieve her evil desire and unsuccessful before the RDO,
Mahabubabad who setup a false claim in collusion with her in son law by name Mattedar
Harmender, who is the husband of this plaintiff lodged a complaint on 17-9-2011 alleging
that this plaintiff has abused him in filthy language and sought for intervention of the law
SC/ST Atrocities Act in his rescue, upon which this defendant No.1 has preferred a petition
U/s.482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quash of the proceeding in Crime No.366/2011 of PS
Hanamkonda wherein the Honourable High Court of A.P., Hyderabad pleased to grant stay of
arrest of the defendant No.1 herein untill the disposal of the said application.

15.Subsequently, the mother of the plaintiff also lodged a complaint before the WPS,
Warangal Urban against the defendant No.1 herein with the same allegations vide Crime
No.31/2013 U/s.498-A,420,494 of IPC and Sec. 3&4 of DP Act, which is pending on the file
of the Honourable I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal. After that, the plaintiff
filed the present nature of suit with all false, and baseless allegations. It is false to allege that,
the father of the defendant No.1 died due to the immoral activities of this defendant No.1, but
loves and believes his daughter in law by name Laxmi that she is having the capacity to
maintain the entire family and protects the interest of family and she is the best in discharging
the duties as the wife of this defendant No.1 he has gifted all his assets in her favour stating
that, he is not interested to further to maintain the burden of the family as she is the
competent to maintain the family interest and burden. As this defendant No.1 is not
possessing any joint family properties the question of seeking the relief of partition against
him is nothing but extract illegal funds by way of harassing the false proceedings in one after
the another.

16.In reply to para 8 of the plaint, it is to submit that, the defendant No.2 is not the tenant of
defendant No.1, hence question of collecting the rents and paying the half rent does not arise
at all and the same is created for the purpose of the present suit. The referred rent of
Rs.3500/- is self imaginary. This defendant No.1 not aware about the particulars of the
defendant No.3 and the referred schedule No.6 is no way concerned with the defendant No.1
and his family.

17.In so far as the allegations and averments made in paras 9,10, and 11 of the plaint, it is
humbly submitted that, there is no cause of action to the plaintiff for filing the present suit
and the pleaded cause of action is purposefully created for the purpose of the suit. There is no
existence of any joint family properties and there is no any jointness in the enjoyment, and
the paid court fee is insufficient and to avoid the payment of court fees, he falsely pleaded the
joint family and jointness and paid a fixed court fee. The suit is barred by limitation.
18.In reply to para 12 of the pliant, pertains to the reliefs setup by the plaintiff are not entitled
by the plaintiff viewed in any angle, facts and circumstances and as per the law. (1) Since,
there is no any jointness, existence of joint family properties, the question of partition of joint
family properties does not arise at all. (2) Since there is no any properties in the name and
custody of this defendant No.1, the question of mesne profits does not arise at all. (3) Since
there is no link or connection with this defendant No.1 to the Item No.6 of the plaint schedule
property, the question of allotment as referred by the plaintiff does not arise at all, (4) Since
the Item No.5 of the plaint schedule property is belonged to the mother of the defendant No.1
by name Smt.Gurram Amruthamma, this defendant No. Tis nothing to do with said property,
and (5) since the reliefs under 1 to 4 are not entitled by the plaintiff, the relief No.5 does not
arise at all, and (6) and as the suit is false, fictitious and frivolous, deserves to be awarding
exemplary costs U/s.35-A of CPC infavour of this defendant No.1regarding the relief No.7,
and as the suit is suppressive of material facts and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as
claimed by her, she is not entitled for any relief.