IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELOFER ABIDA PARVEEN, LD.
ADJ,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. CS DJ/1033/2017
IN THE MATTER OF:-
INDRAWATI & ANR. … PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
TILAK RAJ & ANR. … DEFENDANT
S
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 TO
THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS AND OBJECTIONS
1. That at the very outset, it is submitted that the suit filed by
the Plaintiffs is not maintainable as the same is without any
cause of action and is vague, misconceived, based on wrong
facts and deserves to be dismissed with costs.
2. That it is a classic case of abuse of process of law where the
Plaintiffs who are the real sisters of the answering Defendant
had given up their rights, if any, in the suit property in favor of
their brother i.e. the answering Defendant upon the death of
their father in the year 1983 as the other brother i.e. Brahma
Nand (since deceased) had during the lifetime of their father
had left the parental home and snapped all relations with his
parents and siblings and started residing separately. The
Plaintiffs who were already married at the time of death of
their father in the year 1983, upon father’s death, consented
to the answering Defendant being the absolute owner of the
suit property and had no objection if the answering Defendant
sold the said property and kept the sale proceeds for his
personal needs.
3. That due to the answering Defendant’s personal needs, the
suit property was declared in the market for sale since a very
long time which was well within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs
and the entire locality and when the answering Defendant
decided to sell the property in the year 2009 to Defendant No.
2 and received Rs. 10,00,000/- as earnest money, he disclosed
about the same to his sisters i.e. the Plaintiffs, who also gave
their NOC to the answering Defendant for selling the said
property to Defendant No. 2.
4. That the sale deed of the aforesaid property was executed by
the answering Defendant in favor of Defendant No. 2 in April,
2016 itself which was well within the knowledge of the
Plaintiffs and after more than 8 years of receiving the earnest
money from Defendant No. 2 and more than 1 year of
execution of the sale deed, the Plaintiffs had filed this frivolous
suit with the sole intention of harassing the Defendant herein
and illegally extort money from the answering Defendant.
5. That even otherwise as per the allegations in the plaint itself,
the suit of the Plaintiffs is barred by law i.e. law of inheritance
as envisaged before Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
came into force on 09.09.2005. It is pertinent to mention here
that the father of the Plaintiffs and the answering Defendant
died in 1983 while a daughter can only hold a right to father’s
property if the father has died after this amendment came into
force in 2005. In other words, the father would have to be
alive till 09.09.2005, for the daughter to become a co-sharer
of his property along with her male siblings. The answering
Defendant reserves its right to move a separate detailed
Application in this regard for rejection of plaint in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
6. That the present suit is also liable to be dismissed with
exemplary costs as the same is frivolous and is a gross abuse
of the process of law. It is most respectfully submitter that the
Plaintiffs have not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean
hands by not disclosing and misrepresenting material facts.
The present suit is false, frivolous, misconceived and
vexatious in nature and has been filed with the sole intention
of harassing the Defendant herein and illegally extort money
from the answering Defendant.
7. That it is the enshrined principle of equity that “one who
comes to court must come with clean hands” and since the
Plaintiffs have concealed the material facts and has not
approached this Hon’ble Court with true facts, the present suit
is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.
8. That all the allegations contained in the present suit under
reply are denied unless they are specifically admitted.
PARAWISE REPLY
1. That the contents of para 1 – 2 with reference to the
relationship of the answering Defendant with the Plaintiffs and
their parentage is not denied by the answering Defendant,
also the ownership and registration details of the suit property
are not denied by the answering Defendant.
2. That the contents of para 3 – 4 as stated by the Plaintiffs are
wrong and hence denied. Though it is admitted that Shri
Khajan Singh died intestate on 01.06.1983 at Delhi and his
wife Smt. Kalawati also died intestate on 03.05.1989, it is
denied that the Plaintiffs were left behind as legal heirs as only
the male members of the family i.e. Late Brahma Nand (since
deceased) and the answering Defendant were left behind as
the only legal heirs and not the Plaintiffs herein. It is admitted
that after death of Late Shri Khajan Singh and his wife Smt.
Kalawati, their two sons i.e. the answering Defendant and Shri
Brahma Nand succeeded to the estate of their deceased
father Late Shri Khajan Singh but it is denied that the two
daughters i.e. the Plaintiffs herein also succeeded to the
estate of their deceased father Late Shri Khajan Singh as
stated above for the aforesaid reasons.
3. That the contents of para 5 with reference to Shri Brahma
Nand who expired on 25.01.2005 is not denied by the
answering Defendant.
4. That the contents of para 6 – 7 as stated by the Plaintiffs are
wrong and hence denied. Though it is admitted that the said
tenants are occupying the suit property, it is denied that since
the death of parents, Plaintiffs were also in joint and
constructive possession of the suit property or used to collect
rent and divide rent from the tenants as only the answering
Defendant was in constructive possession of the suit property
after death of his father and the Plaintiffs had no right in the
suit property for the aforesaid reasons.
5. That the contents of para 8 – 14 as stated by the Plaintiffs are
wrong and hence denied in toto. It is denied that after death of
parents, the Plaintiffs had repeatedly requested the answering
Defendant to partition the suit property by metes and bound
as stated. It is further denied that the tenants informed the
Plaintiffs that Defendant No. 1 had sold the suit property to
Defendant No. 2 as stated. It is further denied that the
answering Defendant had illegally got the suit property
mutated in his name in the records of MCD by giving any false
declaration. It is further denied that the Plaintiffs have any
share in the suit property or are entitled to 2/3 share in the
suit property or entitled to its partition. True and correct facts
are that the Plaintiffs who are the real sisters of the answering
Defendant had given up their rights, if any, in the suit property
in favor of their brother i.e. the answering Defendant upon the
death of their father in the year 1983 as the other brother i.e.
Brahma Nand (since deceased) had during the lifetime of their
father had left the parental home and snapped all relations
with his parents and siblings and started residing separately.
The Plaintiffs who were already married at the time of death of
their father in the year 1983, upon father’s death, consented
to the answering Defendant being the absolute owner of the
suit property and had no objection if the answering Defendant
sold the said property and kept the sale proceeds for his
personal needs. Due to the answering Defendant’s personal
needs, the suit property was declared in the market for sale
since a very long time which was well within the knowledge of
the Plaintiffs and the entire locality and when the answering
Defendant decided to sell the property in the year 2009 to
Defendant No. 2 and received Rs. 10,00,000/- as earnest
money, he disclosed about the same to his sisters i.e. the
Plaintiffs, who also gave their NOC to the answering Defendant
for selling the said property to Defendant No. 2. The sale deed
of the aforesaid property was executed by the answering
Defendant in favor of Defendant No. 2 in April, 2016 itself
which was well within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and after
more than 8 years of receiving the earnest money from
Defendant No. 2 and more than 1 year of execution of the sale
deed, the Plaintiffs had filed this frivolous suit with the sole
intention of harassing the Defendant herein and illegally extort
money from the answering Defendant.
6. That the contents of para 15 – 16 as stated by the Plaintiffs
are wrong and hence denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs are
entitled to partition of the suit property by metes and bound
or to separation of two third share in the suit property or
declaration of sale deed executed by the Defendant as null
and void on the ground that it is affecting the rights of the
Plaintiffs.
7. That the contents of para 17 are wrong and denied in toto as
there was never any cause of action for filing the present suit
by the Plaintiffs against the answering Defendant.
8. That the contents of para 18 are admitted to the extent of
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
9. That the contents of para 19 are wrong and denied.
10. That the last para of the suit is the prayer clause which
is misconceived and based on wrong facts and is emphatically
denied. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is
most respectfully stated that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to
any of the reliefs prayed in the said para. It is denied that in
the present case decree of partition in favor of Plaintiffs and
against the answering Defendant can be passed or determine
the share of Plaintiffs as two upon three undivided share as
stated by the Plaintiffs. It is further denied that decree for
declaration declaring the Plaintiffs are two third owners of suit
property can be passed or the sale deed executed by the
Defendant can be declared illegal or void. It is further denied
that the Plaintiffs are entitled to any other order or costs of the
present suit.
In view of the submissions made hereinabove, it is most humbly and
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
dismiss the present suit with exemplary costs.
DEFENDANT NO. 1
Through
(RAJ VARDHAN / RASHMI RAJ VARDHAN)
Advocates
D – 9, Ground Floor,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi – 110014
Ph. No. (+91) 9999444007
E-mail: raj.vardhan@corpcounsel.in
New Delhi
24.04.2018
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this 24 th day of April, 2018 that the
contents of para 1 to 8 of the preliminary submissions and
objections and the contents of para 1 to 10 of the parawise reply of
the above written statement are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge on the basis of information received and believed to be
true, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom. Last para is prayer to this Hon’ble court.
DEFENDANT NO. 1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELOFER ABIDA PARVEEN, LD. ADJ,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. CS DJ/1033/2017
IN THE MATTER OF:-
INDRAWATI & ANR. … PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
TILAK RAJ & ANR. … DEFENDANT
S
AFFIDAVIT
I, Tilak Raj S/o Late Khajan Singh aged about 72 years R/o 226,
Village Asauda Sewan, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District – Rohtak,
Haryana, presently in New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-
1. That I am the Defendant No. 1 in the aforesaid case and being
so I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of
the case and also competent to swear the present affidavit.
2. That the contents of accompanying written statement has
been drafted under my instructions and the facts stated
therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
believed to be true and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.
3. That the contents of the accompanying written statement may
kindly be read as part of the present affidavit and the same
are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this 24 th day of April, 2018 that the
contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been
canceled therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELOFER ABIDA PARVEEN, LD. ADJ,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. CS DJ/1033/2017
IN THE MATTER OF:-
INDRAWATI & ANR. … PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
TILAK RAJ & ANR. … DEFENDANT
S
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANT NO. 1 TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE
WRITTEN STATEMENT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. That the present suit is pending before this Hon’ble Court
and is now fixed for 24.04.2018.
2. That the Defendant No. 1 is a septuagenarian of more than
72 years of age and was unable to file its written statement
within the prescribed period as initially when the aforesaid
documents were received by the answering Defendant, he
was under the impression that they were the relating to the
already pending suit against him in the same court.
3. That when the said papers were shown to his lawyer he was
informed that a separate suit was filed against him by his
sisters which needed reply upon which he confronted his
sisters i.e. the Plaintiffs herein who initially refused of
having filed any case against him when he met them and
later started claiming their right in the suit property.
4. That the answering Defendant tried to reason with them being
his real sisters as he did not want to litigate against them
which took time as initially the Plaintiffs informed that they
shall withdraw the suit and later when matter was not settled
he is constrained to file the accompanying written statement.
5. That the non filing of the written statement within
prescribed time was neither intentional nor malafide but
because of the above said reason.
PRAYER
In view of the submissions made hereinabove, it is most humbly
and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to condone the delay in filing the written statement in
the present case and allow this application of the Defendant in
the interest of justice for the reasons mentioned above.
DEFENDANT NO. 1
Through
(RAJ VARDHAN / RASHMI RAJ VARDHAN)
Advocates
D – 9, Ground Floor,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi – 110014
Ph. No. (+91) 9999444007
E-mail: raj.vardhan@corpcounsel.in
New Delhi
24.04.2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELOFER ABIDA PARVEEN, LD. ADJ,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. CS DJ/1033/2017
IN THE MATTER OF:-
INDRAWATI & ANR. … PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
TILAK RAJ & ANR. … DEFENDANT
S
AFFIDAVIT
I, Tilak Raj S/o Late Khajan Singh aged about 72 years R/o 226,
Village Asauda Sewan, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District – Rohtak,
Haryana, presently in New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-
1. That I am the Defendant No. 1 in the aforesaid case and being
so I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of
the case and also competent to swear the present affidavit.
2. That the contents of accompanying application has been
drafted under my instructions and the facts stated therein are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and believed to
be true and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
3. That the contents of the accompanying application may kindly
be read as part of the present affidavit and the same are not
being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this 24 th day of April, 2018 that the
contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been
canceled therefrom.
DEPONENT
