Download WRITTEN STATEMTNT CPC FOR DEFANDANT IN PLAINTIFF and more Summaries Law of Evidence in PDF only on Docsity!
BEFORE THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, AT DELH
CS No. ___________/ IN THE MATTER OF: YAMINI SAGAR … PLAINTIFF VERSUS VISHAL SAGAR … DEFENDANT WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: PREMILINARY OBJECTIONS:
- That at the very outset all the averments and submissions made by the plaintiff are specifically denied and nothing stated in the plaint ought to be deemed as admitted unless the same is specifically admitted.
- That it is submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as the plaintiff have filed the suit for possession & ad valorem court fee has not been filed alongwith the plaint. Moreover, the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands & the present suit was filed by the plaintiff to usurp the shop of the defendant which was purchased benami in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, on this ground the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be rejected. PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS
- That it is submitted that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as the suit property as defendant is the owner of the property. The suit property was purchased by the funds of the defendant & the suit property is purchased benami in the name of the plaintiff & sale deed dt. 28.02.2014 was executed in the name of his wife i.e plaintiff out of love & affection as they are having a relationship of a husband & wife. This fact is also crystallized from the fact that the defendant is in the occupation & possession of the suit property & carrying on its business in the said shop & original sale deed dt. 28.02.2014 is in the possession of the defendant. It is further submitted that the suit property was purchased by the husband inuring to his benefit for running his business rather than for the benefit of his wife, the plaintiff. It is further stated that the property tax of aforesaid shops was also paid by the defendant.
- That it is pertinent to mention here that right from the period starting from 26.04.2010 to 27.11.2012, the defendant had deposited a total sum of Rs. 17,10,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Ten Thousand only) vide various cheques in the bank account of the plaintiff, specifically for the purchase of the shop No. FF-7, 10817 & 10818 situated at Nabi Karim, Jhandelwalan Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. The copy of the bank statement is annexed herewith.
- That it is also worth mentioning that the plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands as the sale deed
- That the corresponding para No. 1 is false & hence denied. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
- That the corresponding para No. 2 is false & hence denied. It is denied that the expenses of the marriage and the all the functions were borne by the plaintiff and her parents.
- That the corresponding para No. 3 is false as alleged or otherwise & therefore, denied. It is denied that after two years of marriage the plaintiff purchased the two build up shop situated at 10818, 1 st^ Floor, Jhandewalan Road, Nabi Karim, New Delhi measuring 12.24 & 12.24 i.e total 24.48 sq. mt. It is submitted that the shop No. FF-7 was purchased by the funds of the defendant & the said shop is purchased benami in the name of the plaintiff & sale deed dt. 28.02.2014 was executed in the name of his wife i.e plaintiff out of love & affection as they are having a relationship as husband & wife. This fact is also crystallized from the fact that the defendant is in the occupation & possession of the suit property & carrying on its business in the said shop & original sale deed dt. 28.02.2014 is in the possession of the defendant. It is further submitted that the suit property was purchased by the husband inuring to his benefit for running his business rather than for the benefit of his wife, the plaintiff. It is further submitted that only one shop bearing No. FF-7, 10817-10818, Nabi Karim, Jhandelwalan Road, New Delhi was purchased benami by the defendant.
- That the corresponding para No. 4 is false as alleged or otherwise & therefore, denied. It is denied that said property was purchased from the funds of plaintiff in the year 2012-13 & 2013- respectively and the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the said shops. It is submitted that the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same. It is further submitted that the suit property is purchased from the funds of the defendant.
- That the corresponding para No. 5 is false as alleged or otherwise & therefore, denied. It is admitted that one shop was purchased from Allahabad bank but by the defendant in the name of the plaintiff. It is denied due to lack of knowledge that the second shop was purchased from Ms. Usha C/o M/s Simar Traders, Nabi Karim & it is also denied that all the payments were made by the plaintiff and all the shops paper were executed in the name of plaintiff. It is submitted that as per the knowledge of the defendant only one shop bearing No. FF-7, 10817-10818, Nabi Karim, Jhandelwalan Road, New Delhi was purchased benami in the name of plaintiff i.e his wife from the Allahabad bank by the defendant. It is further submitted that no reply is required qua the other shop which is allegedly being made part of the present suit without even filling any document with regard to the same.
- That the corresponding para No. 6 is false & therefore, denied. It is denied that the plaintiff had allowed the defendant out of the love & affection to do his business on above mentioned property/shop as the licensee and nothing more. To this it is submitted by the
denied that after succeeding in his ulterior motive the defendant start showing his true colors towards the plaintiff and his behavior changed and it is further denied that defendant used to behave rudely and used to abuse the plaintiff in the influence of alcohol. It is denied that plaintiff was constrained to call police due to unruly and violent behavior. It is denied that the defendant has an illicit extra marital relationship with a girl for the last two three years and he started ignoring the plaintiff and lastly left the matrimonial relationship with the plaintiff without returning the jewellery and other valuable articles and started living separately and the address was not known to the plaintiff. It is submitted that it is all a concocted story & has no relevance with the present matter at hand.
- That the corresponding para No. 9 is false & therefore, denied. It is denied that the plaintiff had taken shelter at her parents house after few weeks the plaintiff parents arranged a meeting with the defendant and tried to resolve the issue somehow by entering into mutual settlement agreement dt. 09.08.2015 which was duly signed by the respondents and the plaintiff agreed by the respondents that he will pay Rs. 1 lakh p.m to the plaintiff & no single penny was paid till date and the defendant thereafter disappeared without disclosing the residential address and didn’t paid the amount of maintenance. It is submitted that it is all a concocted story & has no relevance with the present matter at hand. It is further submitted that it is the plaintiff who has
deserted the defendant & his family by throwing them out of the matrimonial home. It is further submitted that a divorce petition filed by the defendant is pending in PJFC, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi.
- That the corresponding para No. 10 is false & therefore, denied. It is denied that the plaintiff & her parents patiently waited for some time that with good sense prevail in the respondent but of no avail. It is denied that all the persuasion by the plaintiff and her parents were turned down by the defendant and refused to live with the plaintiff due to wrong advice and instigation by the respondent father & sister. It is submitted that it is all a concocted story & has no relevance with the present matter at hand.
- That the corresponding para No. 11 is false & therefore, denied. It is denied that thereafter in the first week of December, 2017 plaintiff through some reliable source got to know about your residential address i.e Flat No. 1304, Tower-B, Lord Krishna Apartment, Sector-43, Gurugram, Haryana where the defendant was residing on rent along with his father & sister. It is denied that on 01.12.2017 the plaintiff with her drive went to aforesaid address to patch up the things and she had even taken her luggage so as to live with the defendant but the sister & father of the defendant created big scene over there and did not allow the plaintiff to enter in the said flat and used the abusive language towards the plaintiff and her driver and even tried to manhandle them due to the atrocities and manhandling, the plaintiff was
submitted that it is all a concocted story & has no relevance with the present matter at hand.
- That the corresponding para No. 13 is false & therefore, denied. It is denied that the defendant through various untraceable numbers had threaten to plaintiff and her father on phone of dire consequences if she ever will try to take possession of the licensed premises/both shops and further extended threats to the plaintiff to implicate her & her family members in false & frivolous cases. It is admitted to the extent that original sale deed of shop No. FF-7, 10818, Jhandewalan Road, Nabi Karim, New Delhi is in the possession of the defendant as defendant is the owner of the said shop & the sale deed as alleged with regard to the other shop is not in the possession of the defendant.
- That the corresponding para No. 14 is false as alleged or otherwise & therefore, denied. It is denied that considering the acts & deeds & ulterior motives in respect of the above said two shops. It is denied that plaintiff has already terminated his license by serving legal notice dt. 22.01.2018 through his counsel but the respondent has not handed over vacant possession of the suit shops to the plaintiff till date. It is submitted that defendant has not received any legal notice as alleged & even if we suppose that the averments of the plaintiff are true, then in absence of any notice license not be considered as terminated.
- That the corresponding para No. 15 need no reply being legal in nature.
- That the corresponding para No. 16 is false & therefore, denied. It is submitted that the plaintiff has under-valued the property for the purpose of jurisdiction & court fee. It is further submitted that for the relief of possession the ad valorem court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff. Therefore the suit is under-valued & no proper court has been paid by the plaintiff. hence, the suit deserves to be rejected. PRAYER In the facts & circumstances mentioned herein above it is most respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with heavy cost OR Pass any other order or direction deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. DEFENDANT THROUGH ABHISHEK KUKKAR ADVOCATES FOR APPLICANT 393, LAWYER’S CHAMBER (BLOCK 2), DELHI HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI- PLACE: NEW DELHI DATE:
BEFORE THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, AT DELH
CS No. ___________/ IN THE MATTER OF: YAMINI SAGAR … PLAINTIFF VERSUS VISHAL SAGAR … DEFENDANT REPLY ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT TO THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 CPC MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS
- That it is submitted that the applicant has no locus standi to file the present suit as the suit property as defendant/non-applicant is the owner of the property. The shop No. FF-7 was purchased by the funds of the defendant/non applicant & the said shop was purchased benami in the name of the plaintiff/applicant & sale deed dt. 28.02.2014 was executed in the name of his wife i.e plaintiff out of love & affection as they are having a relationship as husband & wife. This fact is also crystallized from the fact that the defendant/non-applicant is in the occupation & possession of the suit property & carrying on its business in the said shop & original sale deed dt. 28.02.2014 is in the possession of the defendant/non-applicant. It is further submitted that the suit property was purchased by the husband inuring to his benefit for running his business rather than for the benefit of his wife, the
plaintiff. It is further stated that the property tax of aforesaid shops was also paid by the defendant.
- That it is also worth mentioning that the plaintiff/applicant has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands as the sale deed dt. 28.02.2014 only pertains to one shop of First Floor without roof rights admeasuring 12.24 sq. Mtrs, Shop Pvt. No. FF- 7, part of property bearing No. 10817 & 10818 situated at Nabi Karim, Jhandelwalan Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi & in the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff/applicant falsely alleged that she has purchased two build up shop situated at 10818, 1 st Floor, Jhandelwalan Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi admeasuring 12.24 & 12.24 i.e total of 24.48 sq. mts. whereas only the sale deed with regard to shop no. FF-7 has been filed before the Court.
- That it is further submitted that the whole property bearing no. XV/10817-10818, Nabi Karim, Jhandewalan Road, Delhi is under the dispute & one Sh. Om Prakash Makkar has filed a suit for possession & recovery of damages claiming to be the owner of property bearing No. XV/10817-10818, Nabi Karim, Jhandewalan Road, Delhi against the shopkeepers who are in the possession of build up shops constructed under the abovesaid property & the matter in pending since 1997 & currently pending before the Court of Ms. Udita Jain, Addtnl. Civil Judge, Central Distt., Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi, case titled as Sh. Om Prakash Makkar Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar & Ors., case bearing No. CS No. 94864/2016.
submissions made in preliminary submissions may kindly be reiterated herein for the sake of brevity.
- That the corresponding para 5 are false & denied. PRAYER In the facts & circumstances mentioned herein above it is most respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the present application with heavy cost OR Pass any other order or direction deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. NON-APPLICANT THROUGH ABHISHEK KUKKAR ADVOCATES FOR APPLICANT 393, LAWYER’S CHAMBER (BLOCK 2), DELHI HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI- PLACE: NEW DELHI DATE:
BEFORE THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, AT DELH
CS No. ___________/ IN THE MATTER OF: YAMINI SAGAR … PLAINTIFF VERSUS VISHAL SAGAR … DEFENDANT AFFIDAVIT Affidavit of Sh. Vishal Sagar S/o Sh. Suyash Sagar, aged about 32 years R/o B-1304, Lord Krishna Apartments, Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana, presently at Delhi I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
- That I am the non applicant in the above case and am well conversant with the facts of the case and as such, I am competent to swear this affidavit.
- That the accompanying reply has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents stated therein have been read over to me in vernacular and after understanding the contents thereof, I say that the same are true and correct to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed and the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit. DEPONENT Verification: Verified at New Delhi on this 24th day Of August, 2018 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. DEPONENT
